Search Results

Poor Sigeric, why so serious? :<

I love it when theists try to use science against Atheists, more often than not they fall flat on their faces in getting the most basic and fundamental things wrong.

1. We believe no such thing. In the beginning of the universe (or rather, of the universe as we know it, there could quite easily have been many other universes before beginning in a "Big Bang" and ending in a "Big Crunch" but that is just one of many theories) there was a singularity which contained all of the matter and anti-matter that makes up the universe today. Yes, that's right, anti-matter. Matter and its counter-part would have been there in equal amounts. Meaning that over all the net mass of the universe would be zero, as they cancel each other out. However, then there was the Big Bang. Now here is the first major misconception. It was not an explosion. I don't know how many times I have had to explain this but it was in no way an explosion. It was an expansion. The dimensions of length, breadth, height and time did not exist outside the singularity (which itself was a zero-dimensional point). These dimensions then expanded to created the first small volume of universe.
You will ask "Surely the matter and anti-matter would then interact and cancel each other out? Leaving nothing but a sea of energy and no solid particles?" This question is currently plaguing physicists. They believe that the positive matter (i.e. with positive mass, every mass in the universe that we are accustomed to) took dominance and the anti-matter moved away from it (not before some interaction releasing massive amounts of energy).

So no, we do not believe that the universe came from nothing, not in the slightest.

2. Again, as I said before, it was an expansion not an explosion. Also, the first element to come into existence was hydrogen. Hydrogen is the most basic of atoms containing one proton and one electron. I don't see how this is disordered. The hydrogen then combined to form helium. High energy collisions then caused rest of the elements as we know it to eventually form. Scientists have created several elements ourselves using this same method.

3. Biology is seen as the iffy part of science lol Technically life did evolve from non-living matter. But the non-living matter was organic compounds. Organic compounds that then became self-replicating.
An even stranger origin theory has been proposed stating that we have our origin in clays, crystalline structures as opposed to organic molecules. It states that RNA (the precursor to DNA) was produced by these clays in order to make them "survive" better. They then made the RNA self-replicating so that they no longer needed to produce it themselves. But RNA was so good at self-replicating that it took over, and here we are today.

4. Lol just because it is called a law doesn't mean it is infallible. At least in science we admit that we don't know and that our theories are just that, theories (albeit ones that are extremely likely to be true). But anyway, the cause for people was a need in previous species to survive better. Simple as that. The environment created a need to improve and caused a bias towards a human-like being.

5. I do not, not even in the slightest. This is the argument that because something is complicated it requires a designer. This works when you look at watches or monuments, but not with living organisms. Evolution is blind, it has no end goal to reach. The reason that organisms evolve is not because some being called evolution picks a particular trait and puts it in, but because a particular trait helps the organism survive long enough to mate and therefore pass that trait on. Eventually that trait becomes dominant and is seen throughout the species.
Another argument says that a part such as the eye could not have evolved in steps as it would not work without all the parts (lens, cornea, iris etc.). But if you think about it, an eye with 50% functionality is better than no eye at all. Even 1% is better than nothing. This can then rise higher and higher in functionality until the environmental no longer demands a better ability to see.

The answers are out there, you just have to look for them (that whole open mind thing that was mentioned before).

Exactly, that was the whole reason the campaign started in the first place. Richard Dawkins was sick of seeing Christian messages all over the inside and outside of public buses. So he decided to put the Atheist alternative.

It is discrimination against the Atheist viewpoint, sorry if I misrepresented what I meant to say. Basically it is perfectly acceptable for there to be Christian messages but as soon as Atheist messages go up saying something along the same vein (Christian messages saying that god exists, Atheist messages saying that there is probably no god. It's a watered down version and there is still a furore.) Christians kick up a fuss. Talk about suppressing the competition.

High in fibre.

WHAT?! For fecks sake, has anyone in the Middle East got their heads on straight? To be honest, I say leave them to fight each other till they run out of steam then deal with what (/who) is left. This constant bickering and warmongering is getting annoying to say the least.

EDIT: I'm surprised no-one has commented on the fact that a ceasefire has been declared by both sides >_>

I would have posted but, you know, double posting and all that.

To be perfectly honest, this has to be one of the most ignorant things I have heard in a long time xD Go research the big bang theory and come back when you have a better idea of what you are talking about :) (good starting point, it wasn't an explosion it was an expansion. The creation [or should I say, formation] of everything after that involved completely different and separate processes unrelated to the initial expansion)

If you have tangible evidence of something you know that in that particular instance whatever it was was true. As to your "that car is blue" that is not technically true. You may see it as blue, but someone else may see it as more green than blue. Again a measure of perspective.

There are no absolutes in the universe. But we can certainly take a pretty good stab (after collecting evidence at figuring out what some truths are that apply to most (if not all) circumstances.

Unfortunately it seems that if Atheists attempt to enlighten others to the almost certain truths of science they are beaten down as "trying to destroy others beliefs", whereas Christian denominations are allowed to go door to door and give out flyer's on the streets and even preach on the streets with no harassment. Bit/Incredibly hypocritical there.

Being wet causes you to loose heat a lot more quickly even if it's warm. Ever notice when you are at the beach and you come back out of the sea? Even though it's like 35 C with the sun beating down on you you still feel cold.

I think it was Canadian geese that the plane hit. Each weighing anywhere from 4 to 12 lbs when planes are designed to withstand impacts with 8 lb birds (one at a time too, not flocks).

I was meaning the people who, as you yourself said, need "belief" rather than the truth. I would rather be strong enough to survive on truth alone than have to fall back on a fantasy world.

Also, my view on the world is based on evidence (evidence which is real and tangible) whereas belief and faith are based on opinion. Which one do you think can be better described as "the truth"?

I would personally rather that people would be strong enough to survive on the truth alone, with no blind faith involved. But if other people are too weak then I suppose it would be too dangerous to shatter their (false) view of how the world works.

This place really has gone to hell in a hand basket, hasn't it?

Reminds me of Ravenholm, except for the lack headcrab zombies of course O_O

Spam is never a good thing, especially in those sections where post count matters. And here's me who has been a member for nearly two years now and I still haven't reached premium D= At least I can't be accused of spam ;D I also avoid it by avoiding the Graphics section completely. Why post somewhere you know nothing about? If you want to say you like someone's graphic PM them. If you have constructive criticism on their work THEN and only then can you post.

I've seen them live and they were AWESOME! They were supporting MCR (because their bassist is Gerard Ways wife) but they were definitely better than them.

I like Shut Me Up and Straight to Video, but all of their songs that I have are awesome =]

It doesn't make you a bad friend, it makes you human. What would make you a bad friend would be if you let the feelings of jealously become a factor in your friendship. It happens to everyone, it is subconscious and we feel it without meaning to. All you have to do is admit it to yourself and then ignore the feeling.

I blame Hamas, they knew that the conflict would lead to this. They knew they had no hope of actually achieving anything but retaliation by Israel. I would say that maybe Israel is being a bit heavy handed, but if they want to stop Hamas firing rockets into Israel then there is no other way. Hamas are driven by religion and there's no way to stop religious fanatics other than force and/or imprisonment.

Also:
The public did nothing; it was the media that gave Hamas attention. The media being a powerful entity over which the public has little control.
If it wasn't for the USA Israel would not exist. Of course they would fund their military so that they can protect themselves from virtually all of their neighbours.
I blame the Muslim world for the complete opposite reason; allowing Hamas to carry out the rocket attacks that caused this whole conflict in the first place.
I also blame the UN for being useless. You'd think that they would have learned from the mistake of the League of Nations. They even have an army now (well, "peacekeepers), which means they should be able to have some clout behind their words. But any time their forces are deployed they are so heavily restricted that they are unable to do anything. All bark no bite I say.
The previous peace agreement was drawn up between France and Egypt. Also, the UK has no military forces left to make a difference (as they are already deployed all over the world) and most countries generally have too much else on their hands right now than worry about yet another conflict in the Middle East.
As for Russia, arming one side of the conflict will just make the conflict last even longer, with even more casualties. It may even cause the conflict to spread.
The problem that Western Europe has applies also to Eastern Europe, China and India. Too much else on their hands with the current economic crisis as well as gas supplies being cut off to Europe from Russia, the recent terrorist attacks in Mumbai and various things within Chinas borders (including, but not limited to, the baby milk incident).
I would like to hear your thoughts on how the Nazis are related to the current crises. Is it their anti-Semitism?
If Hamas hide in civilian areas then civilian areas are going to be bombed. Simple as that.
I blame Hamas almost completely for the current crisis. They fired rockets into Israel knowing full well that there would be retaliation. They may even have counted on this level of retaliation so as to get a sympathy vote from the international community.

The success of a friend can quite easily become the poison in your relationship with them. Like it or not, if they are consistently achieving higher than you then you will end up resenting them, if only subconsciously. Before you know it, you can't stand being around them when they achieve because it just hurts so much.

So yes I agree, but it does depend on the type of success that your friend is having.

I believe what Serbkiller was trying to say is that Israels actions are no better than those of a terrorist organisation. He made no comment as to the Jewish nature of Israel or the right of Israel to exist as a country.

That has to be the first time I've heard of a plane crashing into a river. I immediately thought "oh it must have been a light aircraft" but a full airliner?

At least no-one died. But I lol'd when they automatically assumed it was a terrorist attack, there are plenty of other things that could have gone wrong that are far more likely.

Have you actually watched the whole film?

I can't believe it.

FINALLY, someone that agrees with me.

Chuck Norris = No big deal