• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Who made you?

Rising Sun said:
Then don't post stupid ****. :)
Click to expand...

You presumed. The only one posting stupid **** here is you.

Your world, the religious one, is black and white. Mine is shades of gray. I have no interest in people insisting this celestial north korea they believe in has any domain over me.
 
RAMOSS said:
That is highly speculative... more science fiction than science.
Click to expand...

Well, since I'm not a theoretical physicist, I'll just accept whatever the scientists say. You are free to accept or deny whatever science you like.

https://www.space.com/32728-parallel-universes.html
There actually is quite a bit of evidence out there for a multiverse. First, it is useful to understand how our universe is believed to have come to be....There are at least five theories why a multiverse is possible, as a 2012 Space.com article explained:....


https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-43976977
Prof Stephen Hawking's final research paper suggests that our Universe may be one of many similar to our own.

The theory resolves a cosmic paradox of the late physicist's own making.

It also points a way forward for astronomers to find evidence of the existence of parallel universes.

The study was submitted to the Journal of High-Energy Physics 10 days before Prof Hawking died.

In the 1980s, the Cambridge scientist, along with US physicist James Hartle developed a new idea about the beginning of the Universe.

This resolved a difficulty with Einstein's theory that suggested that the Universe began nearly 14 billion years ago but said nothing about how it began.

Instead, the Hartle-Hawking idea used a different theory called quantum mechanics to explain how the Universe arose from nothingness.

The idea tied up one loose end but created another - an infinite number some might say.

As physicists analysed the idea it emerged that it carried with it the implication that the Big Bang would create not just one universe - but an endless supply....
_101127444_r9800199-parallel_universes-spl.jpg
 
Obscurity said:
You presumed. The only one posting stupid **** here is you.

Your world, the religious one, is black and white. Mine is shades of gray. I have no interest in people insisting this celestial north korea they believe in has any domain over me.
Click to expand...

LOL. Disagreed, but you are free to believe as you wish.
 
Rising Sun said:
Well, since I'm not a theoretical physicist, I'll just accept whatever the scientists say. You are free to accept or deny whatever science you like.

https://www.space.com/32728-parallel-universes.html
There actually is quite a bit of evidence out there for a multiverse. First, it is useful to understand how our universe is believed to have come to be....There are at least five theories why a multiverse is possible, as a 2012 Space.com article explained:....


https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-43976977
Prof Stephen Hawking's final research paper suggests that our Universe may be one of many similar to our own.

The theory resolves a cosmic paradox of the late physicist's own making.

It also points a way forward for astronomers to find evidence of the existence of parallel universes.

The study was submitted to the Journal of High-Energy Physics 10 days before Prof Hawking died.

In the 1980s, the Cambridge scientist, along with US physicist James Hartle developed a new idea about the beginning of the Universe.

This resolved a difficulty with Einstein's theory that suggested that the Universe began nearly 14 billion years ago but said nothing about how it began.

Instead, the Hartle-Hawking idea used a different theory called quantum mechanics to explain how the Universe arose from nothingness.

The idea tied up one loose end but created another - an infinite number some might say.

As physicists analysed the idea it emerged that it carried with it the implication that the Big Bang would create not just one universe - but an endless supply....
_101127444_r9800199-parallel_universes-spl.jpg
Click to expand...

Hum. Space.com tends to be a bit sensationalist. There is some interpretations of quantum mechanics that suggest it from a mathematical point of view, but there is a difference between an interpretation of the results, and being able to TEST to confirm that speculation/interpretation.
 
Rising Sun said:
LOL. Disagreed, but you are free to believe as you wish.
Click to expand...

Disgaree all you like, I don't give a ****. You have no point to make. Move along, plebe.
 
Obscurity said:
Disgaree all you like, I don't give a ****. You have no point to make. Move along, plebe.
Click to expand...

If that were really true, you wouldn't have bothered to use the HS tough guy routine by responding. If you really don't care what I think, why bother posting to me? What do you think you have to prove to me? Others?

Plebe? Are you in college? A sophomore trying to look good to the juniors and seniors?
 
RAMOSS said:
Hum. Space.com tends to be a bit sensationalist. There is some interpretations of quantum mechanics that suggest it from a mathematical point of view, but there is a difference between an interpretation of the results, and being able to TEST to confirm that speculation/interpretation.
Click to expand...

Sensationalistic is a person who disagrees but only supplies opinion, not facts or supporting evidence.
 
Good4Nothin said:
For a pantheist like me, the answer is the infinitely intelligent and creative Universe. I just call it God.

I naturally assume that whoever made me is a whole lot smarter than I am. Therefore I do not worship my own intelligence and ego. I know they are limited and very likely to be wrong most of the time.

Atheists, however, do not believe that we were made. Instead, they think that atoms and molecules banged into each other randomly and by accident somehow created life. They have no explanations for how this could have happened, but they feel very certain that it did.

Therefore, atheists have no reason to doubt human intelligence. They do not suspect that their reasoning process could be wrong.

So I see this as one big difference between believers and atheists. BUT -- fundamentalist Christians have something in common with atheists.

Fundamentalist Christians don't have faith in their own intelligence and reasoning powers, but they DO have faith in the intelligence of the people who wrote their bible.

Atheists and fundamentalist Christians are the outspoken extremes in the US. But most Americans are probably pantheists like me, even if they don't know the word and never thought much about it.

We were created by something infinitely smarter than ourselves. We are all connected in ways we can't understand. Life is meaningful in ways we can't imagine.

This kind of faith is inclusive, not divisive. It makes sense scientifically. No, it can't be proven. But we can each experience its miracles in our personal lives.
Click to expand...

Most of the atheists I've met are fundamentalists, that is, they have a very fundamentalist grasp on religion, especially Christianity.
 
it's just me said:
Most of the atheists I've met are fundamentalists, that is, they have a very fundamentalist grasp on religion, especially Christianity.
Click to expand...
Most of the New Atheists I've encountered, that is to say most strident internet atheists, are Nescients when it comes to religion and particularly to the religious experience.
 
Angel said:
Most of the New Atheists I've encountered, that is to say most strident internet atheists, are Nescients when it comes to religion and particularly to the religious experience.
Click to expand...

I don't know where the line is between "new" and "old" atheism is, I'm guessing the "new" atheists are the ones with the biggest mouths - evangelical atheists, spreading the misery of their non-belief. They're miserable and they want you to be miserable, too.
 
it's just me said:
I don't know where the line is between "new" and "old" atheism is, I'm guessing the "new" atheists are the ones with the biggest mouths - evangelical atheists, spreading the misery of their non-belief. They're miserable and they want you to be miserable, too.
Click to expand...

Citation that atheists are miserable and they want others to be miserable too ? and what does this unsubstantiated claim have to do with the thread topic?
 
Last edited:
Logician Man said:
Citation that atheists are miserable and they want others to be miserable too ? and what does this unsubstantiated claim have to do with the thread topic?
Click to expand...
Atheists are miserable by definition. Misery loves company axiomatically. Atheists are miserable because they cannot answer the OP question correctly.
 
Angel said:
Atheists are miserable by definition. Misery loves company axiomatically. Atheists are miserable because they cannot answer the OP question correctly.
Click to expand...

what definition? What is the correct answer to the OP question, and what definitive proof can you provide, if any, to support your alleged correct answer?
 
Logician Man said:
what definition? What is the correct answer to the OP question, and what definitive proof can you provide, if any, to support your alleged correct answer?
Click to expand...
Atheists are also miserable because they don't know they're miserable by definition and, incapable of answering the OP question correctly, waste their time asking fool questions instead.
 
Angel said:
Atheists are also miserable because they don't know they're miserable by definition and, incapable of answering the OP question correctly, waste their time asking fool questions instead.
Click to expand...

Your dodge and defeat is duly noted by all and graciously accepted.
 
Dragonfly said:
you're being trolled. stop taking the bait.
Click to expand...

Yes, good advice. There is no way that these two jokers think that all atheists are miserable, unless they know every atheist in the world. Ignore them.
 
zyzygy said:
Yes, good advice. There is no way that these two jokers think that all atheists are miserable, unless they know every atheist in the world. Ignore them.
Click to expand...

But the projections are good for a laugh.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom