Lissa Marie

US Politics

Atheists sue to keep 'In God We Trust' off Capitol Visitor Cent...

It's a beautiful property Wolvie, though it could do without the view of the city.  (16 min ago | post #6406)

US Politics

Atheists sue to keep 'In God We Trust' off Capitol Visitor Cent...

That answer implies that you see something I do not, while in actuality you only believe in something I do not.  (42 min ago | post #6403)

US Politics

Atheists sue to keep 'In God We Trust' off Capitol Visitor Cent...

Hawkins also concluded his book with: Even if there is only one possible unified theory it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?... Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Is the unified theory so compelling that it brings about its own existence? Or does it need a creator, and, if so, does he have any other effect on the universe? And who created him? If we do discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable in broad principle by everyone, not just a few scientists. Then we shall all, philosophers, scientists, and just ordinary people be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason - for then we would know the mind of God.  (53 min ago | post #6402)

US Politics

Atheists sue to keep 'In God We Trust' off Capitol Visitor Cent...

When I look out my window I see evidence of many wonderous things. I see the ocean, the forest, the unending beauty of the night sky but I see no evidence of a deity. If I had to put a belief on what I see it would be the wonderful diversity of Nature and the Universe itself.  (1 hr ago | post #6390)

US Politics

Atheists sue to keep 'In God We Trust' off Capitol Visitor Cent...

How can anyone even claim to have a basic understanding of the concept of Omnipotence. Let's presume there is a god-like entity consciently taking actions we cannot comprehend or even understand the limits of a said deity's power. So let's also presume that in trying to develop a theory to explain, assign or reject omnipotence on grounds of logic has little merit since being omnipotent would mean the omnipotent being is above logic. I for one can not accept this as fact. I understand you have faith in your belief of God but do you have a real understanding of the actual fact of what Omnipotence actually means?  (1 hr ago | post #6388)

US Politics

Atheists sue to keep 'In God We Trust' off Capitol Visitor Cent...

Again, denying something means that you have knowledge of what it is that you are being asked to affirm. I can not have a belief (or disbelief) for that matter in something that does not in my mind exist.  (2 hrs ago | post #6383)

US Politics

Atheists sue to keep 'In God We Trust' off Capitol Visitor Cent...

We seem to have the same problem then. No matter what science I throw at the believers if they can not refute it they will twist it to further their beliefs. It is only possible to debate when a mind is open to all possibilities. I do not revert (well very rarely if I'm totally honest) to name calling. You are entitled to your beliefs as am I to mine.  (3 hrs ago | post #6379)

US Politics

Atheists sue to keep 'In God We Trust' off Capitol Visitor Cent...

Geez dude, stop with the oxymorons, I thought you wanted an honest debate. So again I will state: Denying something means that you have knowledge of what it is that you are being asked to affirm, but that you have rejected that particular concept because it has no proof. To be without a belief in God merely means that the term "god" has no meaning to you and that belief in God is not a factor in your life. This is quite different from denying the existence of God. Atheism is not a belief as such. It is again the lack of belief.  (3 hrs ago | post #6373)

US Politics

Atheists sue to keep 'In God We Trust' off Capitol Visitor Cent...

Wolvie science has proven beyond a doubt many definitive facts reguarding evolution. As for myself I will believe in Aliens, Ghosts and Gods when I see one with my own eyes. Again, atheisim is not a belief system, it is a lack of belief.  (3 hrs ago | post #6371)

US Politics

Atheists sue to keep 'In God We Trust' off Capitol Visitor Cent...

Not true in the least. Show me your proof and I will be happy to debate it with you. Basic atheism is not a belief. It is the lack of belief. There is a difference between believing there is no god and not believing there is a god - both are atheistic, though popular usage has ignored the latter. The average theologian (there are exceptions, of course) uses "atheist " to mean a person who denies the existence of a God. Even an atheist would agree that some atheists (a small minority) would fit this definition. However most atheists would strongly dispute the adequacy of this definition. Rather they would hold that an atheist is a person without a belief in God. The distinction is small but important. Denying something means that you have knowledge of what it is that you are being asked to affirm, but that you have rejected that particular concept. To be without a belief in God merely means that the term "god" has no importance, or possibly no meaning, to you. Belief in God is not a factor in your life. Surely this is quite different from denying the existence of God. Atheism is not a belief as such. It is again the lack of belief.  (4 hrs ago | post #6364)

US Politics

Atheists sue to keep 'In God We Trust' off Capitol Visitor Cent...

No Wolvie it makes them wrong without proof.  (4 hrs ago | post #6360)

US Politics

Atheists sue to keep 'In God We Trust' off Capitol Visitor Cent...

The theories about the origin of life are not within the limits of our knowledge and understanding yet but rather in the limits of our own philosophies. The meaning and definition of life is the most difficult and direct concept that can be presented to anyone. I would not even presume to have a definitive answer, only logical conclusions and theories.  (4 hrs ago | post #6357)

US Politics

Atheists sue to keep 'In God We Trust' off Capitol Visitor Cent...

For the scientific community intelligent design represents creationism's latest grasp at scientific legitimacy. Accordingly, intelligent design is viewed as yet another ill-conceived attempt by creationists to straightjacket science within a religious ideology. But in fact intelligent design can be formulated as a scientific theory having empirical consequences and devoid of religious commitments. Intelligent design can be unpacked as a theory of information. Within such a theory, information becomes a reliable indicator of design as well as a proper object for scientific investigation.  (Yesterday | post #6322)

US Politics

Atheists sue to keep 'In God We Trust' off Capitol Visitor Cent...

Intelligent design is a scientific theory which has its roots in information theory and observations about intelligent action. Intelligent design theory makes inferences based upon observations about the types of complexity that can be produced by the action of intelligent agents vs. the types of information that can be produced through purely natural processes to infer that life was designed by an intelligence or multiple intelligences. It makes no statements about the identity of the intelligent designer(s), but merely says that intelligent action was involved at some points with the origins of various aspects of biological life.  (Monday | post #6321)

US Politics

Atheists sue to keep 'In God We Trust' off Capitol Visitor Cent...

Biological evolution is genetic change in a population from one generation to another. The speed and direction of change is variable with different species lines and at different times. Continuous evolution over many generations can result in the development of new varieties and species. Likewise, failure to evolve in response to environmental changes can, and often does, lead to extinction. When scientists speak of evolution as a theory they do not mean that it is a mere speculation. It is a theory in the same sense as the propositions that the earth is round rather than flat or that our bodies are made of atoms are theories. Most people would consider such fundamental theories to be sufficiently tested by empirical evidence to conclude that they are indeed facts. As a result of the massive amount of evidence for biological evolution accumulated over the last two centuries, we can safely conclude that evolution has occurred and continues to occur. All life forms, including humans, evolved from earlier species, and all still living species of organisms continue to evolve today. They are not unchanging end-products. For those who have difficulty in accepting evolution because of what they perceive as contradictions with their fundamental religious beliefs, it may be useful to distinguish the ultimate origin of life from its later evolution. Many, if not most, biological scientists accept that primordial life on earth began as a result of chance natural occurrences 3.5-4 billion years ago.  (Monday | post #6320)