Atheism V's Theism.

You're an atheist and yet you think that atheism is a religion? That's weird.

 

I'm just happy they don't expect me to tithe.

 

I'm just happy they don't expect me to tithe.

 

Who? I really am interested in hearing what criteria of religion atheism has...

 

I really don't know much about Atheism. This forum is the first I heard of it. But I would say it is my religion and Baptist my denomination.

 

....So you believe in God yet you are claiming to be an atheist?

 

No, I am atheist. I attend a Baptist church because I enjoy it. I don't believe that stuff. Just works out better attending church.

 

... What do you exactly enjoy about attending a Baptist church, if I may ask?

 

I know what you mean! It's a dull religion.. No books, no sermons, no churches to attend, no nuthin'!

But then I found FSM, or rather, He found me

 

I like to listen to Jesus Christ Superstar sometimes

 

I like the music. The preacher is very talented and entertaining. See my post in the 7 best things about Christianity for a fuller list.

 

Good points, especially the women in their Sunday dress

But, anyways, most people that aren't Christians don't really consider atheism to be a religion anymore than theism, just to sort that out.

I respect your decision to go to a Baptist church if you like it

 

Yes, I would agree that you are 'touched'.... but not in the flattering way that you might like to elect.... As for me... Too much pasta is not good for you (physically),, it tends to put the pounds on and I am getting too old physically to deal with any weight loss programs. Just out of curiosity... what type of sauce do you prefer that he wear when he is touching you? Seems that it would end up in quite a mess to clean up regardless of what type of sauce is used.

 

And ten the fondling started ... the mixing of noodles ...

Why do atheists think the whole pedophile thing was bad?

BTW - I do appreciate an atheist FINALLY admitting that they do not read books. Whew! I strongly suspected as much, but the overt admission of such greatly clarifies many things

 

His sauce is divine, and obviously not something mundane, visible and messy!

/That's what the Catholic priest said...

 

Are you now suggesting that he is a god?

"di·vine (d-vn)
adj. di·vin·er, di·vin·est
1.
a. Having the nature of or being a deity.
b. Of, relating to, emanating from, or being the expression of a deity: sought divine guidance through meditation.
c. Being in the service or worship of a deity; sacred.
2. Superhuman; godlike.
3.
a. Supremely good or beautiful; magnificent: a divine performance of the concerto.
b. Extremely pleasant; delightful: had a divine time at the ball.
4. Heavenly; perfect."

 

The FSM defines divine, my poor uninitiated friend. False gods and the dictionary definitions associated with them cannot hope to begin to capture the true essence of Him.

 

You do realize Inc, he's just messing with you? His intent is not to debate at all - but to get a rise out of you - no doubt so his peers can report YOU as the troll.

 

With all of your raving about this FSM (divine being according to you), then there is no error in submitting that you as a non-theist are in fact a theist who worships that being called the FSM. Therefore, you can neither claim atheism or agnosticism because you have made your public declaration of worship toward that divine being that you call FSM.

Congratulations on becoming a Theist.

 

Well of course he's just messing with him. If he's a True Atheist he knows that the IPU is the One.

 

Well Neutral; I have been called a troll by many on this forum, but unfortunately for those who have thrown such label against me, it is not their opinion that counts. The rules of the forum clearly show that the moderators are the only ones who have any official capacity to label someone as a 'troll'. All others are just opinions without merit.

 

Are you a true Atheist, or are you a false atheist who in fact worships the IPU?

 

Are you a true Atheist, or are you a false atheist who in fact worships the IPU?

 

Actually, I asked a question. Did you see the question mark there?

 

“A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”–Cambridge University astrophysicist and mathematician Fred Hoyle

“Fred Hoyle and I differ on lots of questions, but on this we agree: a common sense and satisfying interpretation of our world suggests the designing hand of a superintelligence.”–Former Harvard University Research Professor of Astronomy and the History of Science Owen Gingerich, who is also the senior astronomer at the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory. Gingerich is here reflecting on Fred Hoyle’s above comment.

​

“Try to imagine phase space… of the entire universe. Each point in this phase space represents a different possible way that the universe might have started off. We are to picture the Creator, armed with a ‘pin’ — which is to be placed at some point in phase space… Each different positioning of the pin provides a different universe. Now the accuracy that is needed for the Creator’s aim depends on the entropy of the universe that is thereby created. It would be relatively ‘easy’ to produce a high entropy universe, since then there would be a large volume of the phase space available for the pin to hit. But in order to start off the universe in a state of low entropy — so that there will indeed be a second law of thermodynamics — the Creator must aim for a much tinier volume of the phase space. How tiny would this region be, in order that a universe closely resembling the one in which we actually live would be the result?”
​

Lennox goes on to cite Penrose’s answer:

“His calculations lead him to the remarkable conclusion that the ‘Creator’s aim’ must have been accurate to 1 part in 10 to the power of 10 to the power or 123, that is 1 followed by 10 to the 123rd power zeros.”
​

As Penrose puts it, that is a “number which it would be impossible to write out in the usual decimal way, because even if you were able to put a zero on every particle in the universe, there would not even be enough particles to do the job.”
And the only alternative to the universe arising from chance is for it to have arisen deliberately. Deliberate action requires a conscious creator (read: God).

http://www.godevidence.com/2010/12/...ability-the-universe-is-the-result-of-chance/




That number is 10^10^123 - far larger than you've been using. Zero probability in mathematical terms is 1 in 10^50.

Since anyone who is anyone in the field of astrophysics looks are your proclamation and , I'm going to as well.

Um...wut?