1) Who actually thinks that cosmology and geophysics are on the same level as creationism? They are as different as night and day, facts and lies, truth and superstition.
2)  I suggest you actually take the time to study “this” before trying to intelligently discuss them. If not is a waste of everyone’s time…
3) There are evolutionary records for the planets, stars and the universe itself. Again, I strongly suggest you read up on these topics. See my previous recommendations on where to start. Then you can ask intelligently. No one is bound to do your homework for you. 
4) Miracles to prevent catastrophic planetary accidents? Really? At this point I can only concluded you are a troll. Who hasn’t at least heard of gravity, orbits and black holes? C’mon…
5) No point going back and forth anymore. For those still interested the fact remains that asserting that a designer made the universe does not solve the problem of who designed the designer. If the assumption is that the designer had no need for anyone to design it/him/her then, why can’t we assert the same thing of the Universe itself? Per Occam’s razor (google it) belief in a supreme designer is superfluous and a total waste of time since no facts support it. 
Truly it is easier to sit on one’s couch and assert baseless things about the universe than actually taking the time to study and learn how the universe actually is and came to be. That is the difference between a lazy, uninformed person and one who actually seeks truth. May we always be the latter and never the former.
In reason:-FA


1) Who actually thinks that cosmology and geophysics are on the same level as creationism? They are as different as night and day, facts and lies, truth and superstition.

2)  I suggest you actually take the time to study “this” before trying to intelligently discuss them. If not is a waste of everyone’s time…

3) There are evolutionary records for the planets, stars and the universe itself. Again, I strongly suggest you read up on these topics. See my previous recommendations on where to start. Then you can ask intelligently. No one is bound to do your homework for you. 

4) Miracles to prevent catastrophic planetary accidents? Really? At this point I can only concluded you are a troll. Who hasn’t at least heard of gravity, orbits and black holes? C’mon…

5) No point going back and forth anymore. For those still interested the fact remains that asserting that a designer made the universe does not solve the problem of who designed the designer. If the assumption is that the designer had no need for anyone to design it/him/her then, why can’t we assert the same thing of the Universe itself? Per Occam’s razor (google it) belief in a supreme designer is superfluous and a total waste of time since no facts support it. 

Truly it is easier to sit on one’s couch and assert baseless things about the universe than actually taking the time to study and learn how the universe actually is and came to be. That is the difference between a lazy, uninformed person and one who actually seeks truth. May we always be the latter and never the former.

In reason:
-FA

Just received this. Here are my thoughts:

All we seen and have shown to be true about our universe indicates that complexity comes from simplicity. Be it evolution or cosmology, complex systems are nothing more than the sum of simpler more basic systems. At one point, at the begging of time, the universe was way more simple than what it is today. Just what we would expect from an unguided state of affairs. 

Now, If the complexity and/or mathematical precision of the universe today requires an even more complex designer than the universe itself, where did the designer’s complexity come from to begin with? What reasoning mind could side step such basic question? What reasoning mind would assert no need to explain the alleged designer’s complexity? If one side steps the question on the  designer, why not do it as well in regards to the universe itself? The designer idea becomes and is wholly unnecessary, and still we do have good hypothesis of how the universe came to be… 

I recommend the book “A Universe from Nothing” by Krause on the topic.

Isn’t such trite argumentation evidently self defeating? Only when a reasoning mind realizes that complexity comes from simplicity are the doors open to accept the fact that belief in a grand designer is superfluous. The universe itself is a witness against such fact lacking assumptions of design and unaccounted for complexity. 

In reason:
-FA

PD
Watch some Cosmos on Fox. Great program.

Just received this. Here are my thoughts:

All we seen and have shown to be true about our universe indicates that complexity comes from simplicity. Be it evolution or cosmology, complex systems are nothing more than the sum of simpler more basic systems. At one point, at the begging of time, the universe was way more simple than what it is today. Just what we would expect from an unguided state of affairs.

Now, If the complexity and/or mathematical precision of the universe today requires an even more complex designer than the universe itself, where did the designer’s complexity come from to begin with? What reasoning mind could side step such basic question? What reasoning mind would assert no need to explain the alleged designer’s complexity? If one side steps the question on the designer, why not do it as well in regards to the universe itself? The designer idea becomes and is wholly unnecessary, and still we do have good hypothesis of how the universe came to be…

I recommend the book “A Universe from Nothing” by Krause on the topic.

Isn’t such trite argumentation evidently self defeating? Only when a reasoning mind realizes that complexity comes from simplicity are the doors open to accept the fact that belief in a grand designer is superfluous. The universe itself is a witness against such fact lacking assumptions of design and unaccounted for complexity.

In reason:
-FA

PD
Watch some Cosmos on Fox. Great program.

Oprah

transparentsomersaults submitted:

In response to your youtube comment, I agree that science is profound in it’s design.  I don’t agree that it just occurred without an objective, if we ourselves, value reason. 

I agree with Oprah in that we have confined God outside of science and by the tenets of religiousity.

FA:
What youtube comment? That being said, the universe does not owe us purpose, nor does it require an objective. Why do you assume it has to? No one has confined god to anything. It is not scientific religiosity (an oxymoron of course) that confines god, it is the fact that there is no evidence such a being exists in the first place. God, any god, is welcomed to make his/her/its presence apparent. Just like science is. Just like the universe is. Just like this post is. Is that too much to ask from a “god”?

This is a question that demands an answer if we ourselves value reason.

In reason:
-FA

By Daniel Burke, CNN Belief Blog Co-Editor (CNN) — How did Syria go from an internal uprising to a wider clash drawing funding and fighters from across the region?

In a word, Middle East experts say, religion.

Shiite Muslims from Lebanon, Iraq and Iran have flooded into Syria to defend sacred sites and President Bashar al-Assad’s embattled regime. Sunni Muslims, some affiliated with al Qaeda, have rushed in to join rebels, most of whom are Sunni.

Both sides use religious rhetoric as a rallying cry, calling each other “infidels” and “Satan’s army.”

"That is why it has become so muddy," said professor Joshua Landis, director of the Center for Middle East Studies at the University of Oklahoma. "The theological question has returned to the center."

That’s not to say that the warring parties are fighting over, say, the definition of God.

But the United Nations, in a series of reports, has warned with mounting urgency that the battle lines in Syria are being drawn along sectarian - that is, religious - lines. Both sides fear that whoever wins power will obliterate the loser.

Belief in gods, making things worse since men invented them.

-FA

selloutsamizdat asked:

Do you have a good suggestion for how to respond when people ask me to "pray for" someone, like their ill child or an ailing parent or something? These people are usually anguished by some serious medical threat. At times like this, it would be pretty rude to say "I am not going to pray for you because I don't believe..." yet I need so say something. I often try to say something like "It sounds like your child is getting the best medical care" or something like that. Any better ideas?

I don’t think it is rude to say I’m not a christian/muslim/jew/theist. You can follow up by saying that even though you do not pray for healing you do hope for such and that you are there to assist them in any way you can in order to make it so.

I know my response is not catchy or simple but the fact of the matter is that you response will depend on the situation.

Maybe something like this:

I’m not a christian, I’m not a believer in gods, but i do believe in hope and love. I do believe in people, I believe in helping you out anyway i can through these hard times. And at the end the day I believe that if  a god does exist, it will surely be interested in you, your well being and your happiness. Just as I am. 

Any thoughts or suggestions from the readers? Let me know. Will post a few of them later on today.

In reason:
-FA 

stfu-sda-fundies-deactivated201

stfu-sda-fundies:

Posted by an Adventist I know on Facebook.  To be fair, he’s only 12 and his family shoves all this nonsense down his throat.  

Sometimes I wonder if the “pop stars are Illuminati puppets!!1!” meme was made up by religious parents who decided they needed to change their tactics.  They couldn’t get their kids to stop listening to all the devil music and the hippity-hop, so they tried to make it seem cool and rebellious to NOT like it.  Coincidence???  I THINK NOT!

For those who don’t know, Gangam Style is supposed to be a sarcastic commentary on how certain parts of modern Korean culture are obsessed with class and wealth.  Non-Korean listeners need to do some research to understand its context (instead of projecting an American perspective onto his work, which is what the person who made these graphics is doing). Psy is known for his subversive politics and has been in trouble for speaking out against his country’s mandatory military draft and denouncing the Iraq War.  Shill for the elites he ain’t.

On a related note, I kind of wish conspiracy theorists would take a literature class or two.  Maybe then they’d learn how to detect irony and understand what “symbolism” actually means. 

Foot work of authority!!! LOL!! WTF!!!

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA!!!

-FA

Jesus would be so proud….
-FA