Comments - CommanderDG

Correction:
Weknowmemes.com

The author of the video replied and said this:
I took most of the footage of Hitchens speech from the movie "Collision". It's a good movie and you can watch it here on youtube.

You still haven't proven anything. How can you claimed that Epicurus and myself are wrong if you cannot prove it? You don't even a something to back up your theory, how can you possibly prove ours wrong.
Epicurus was right. There is no question to that. God either doesn't care, is not that powerful, or he doesn't exist. Either of those answer thus tell me that there has to be an alternative. Science has one, you don't.

Lets dig deeper. It is not specified when Daniel prophesied that, therefore he could say it will happened in 200 years and it could still be true. The estimation is subjective. You cannot prove his estimation was accurate, only that the event were true. Though he also prophesied a flood which to my knowledge never happened. Here is the exact quote:
" 25 Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.

26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined."

It's not exactly what you claimed, can we agree on that at the very least? All of this is assuming it remained unchanged of course. You said you had a proof of that. Maybe cite it? I am having a hard time finding it.

"Those who assert that the mathematical sciences say nothing of the beautiful or the good are in error. For these sciences say and prove a great deal about them; if they do not expressly mention them, but prove attributes which are their results or definitions, it is not true that they tell us nothing about them. The chief forms of beauty are order and symmetry and definiteness, which the mathematical sciences demonstrate in a special degree."

Nice unconventional poetry? ...

M-theory hasn't any physical or empirical evidence but it is backed up by other theory, which in turn is backed up by quantum mechanics. God is not predicted or proven by NOTHING. So in the end, you are the one who is trying to prove that something came from nothing, not me.

"created things always have a creator BASED ON WHAT WE HAVE OBSERVED AND RECORDED THROUGHOUT HISTORY."
What you are referring to is called an sample not an census of data. It's also a fallacy of exclusive premises. Created thing have by definition a creator. Also, you assumed they have been created in the first place. Have you seen god make the universe? Thought so.
Therefore, you are the one with the theory which is not based on any kind of evidence, not me. I at least have mathematical models and logic to back me up.

We do not know what created the universe, I am not afraid to say it. But I do know that god is not a likely candidate.

I have presented empirical proof that God is not the sole possible explanation, what I haven't empirically proven is that God did not make the universe or that he doesn't exist. As I said so many times now, you are spiting hairs, and it's really not needed, because at the end of the day, you haven't proven anything at all with the exception of your fallacious logic.

I haven't challenged your bible prophecies because I hoped you would realize how ridiculous it was. Clearly I was wrong. In addition, it seems to be written by you judging by the fact that the account was created on June 2012. The flawed logic is also quite familiar.
At least take the time to cite other sources than yourself.
Moreover, even if it was true, you proved one "prophecy". For one educated guess I should start following the bible by the book?
In fact's lets develop that idea even more. Let's assume the prophecy was true, why is God involved? The bible is written by man. Why does it prove god?

I have nothing to prove you if I do not dismiss a theory as long I have another theory to dismiss the former. You senselessly bash on anything remotely linked to atheism.
I merely think that the God theory remains unproven and illogical with our current understanding of physics and that we have a possible replacement. I do not believe that the God theory should be dismissed so hastily, but, we got nothing to validate it. Here is a simpler analogy:
People claims there is alien's UFO, I never seen one, and most scientist agree, it's very unlikely.
I do not dismiss the possibility but I do find it unlikely too. However we have a replacement theory which is much more likely.
It's probably some military aircraft which have not yet been presented to the public. It's not a satisfying explanation but it's better than the former. Hence, I need no academic paper, because I adapt to our scientific knowledge. I am not the one suggesting a theory. I am merely offering alternative to the "theory" that you provided and that you keep claiming it's the sole valid one.

Your argument is backed by your hypothesis that their must be a mind to produce order and design. Nothing more.
Observations are not proof. If the explanation behind that observation, is sound, and if the measurement is repeatable, it can be declared a proof. The God theory cannot be proven because you cannot prove me there is a god, there is no measurement that can.
We know that there is virtual particle popping in and back out of the vacuum. We also know that some theories predicts a multiverse. What no physical theory predict or prove is, the God theory.
It would be only logical if you could prove that something from nothings is impossible, and you can't. At best, you could say we haven't observed it. Your argument is anti-scientific and far from logical.

"That's atheist theory 1 debunked which you were supporting earlier ago. "
I never agreed to that, you are acting childishly again...*sigh* I won't bother to repeat myself.
You are the first person to by himself, to truly discouraged me to trying to reason with, I can give you that achievement at least. Oh well, I got to try. You brought forth something tangible at least this time.

I am fully capable of keeping track of my arguments. Apparently, you can't, because not only you repeat your old senseless hypotheses and you seem to forget that I also already proved them to be wrong. You are in no position to judge my skills at debating if yours are worst than my own by the shear lack of proof.

I am well aware of the BVG theorem, but as usual you have misconceive that this has to prove God.
This guy already took the time to debunk your ...lie?

I am no longer sure if you even believe what you are saying. Let me tell you what is anti-logic. You are trying to prove something without any proof. It can't get any ludicrous than that.

You cannot lay foundation if it has already been done. If anything, atheism is progress over religion because, it doesn't take " God hypothesis" as facts, it automatically dismiss them for lack of evidence.
"once, it was Muslims who contributed greatly to science"
It's irrelevant. Their religious affiliation doesn't stop them from being great scientist. The fact remains, modern great scientist are mostly agnostic or atheist because they now follow the scientific method in order to prove or dismiss evidence including to what relates to any religion.

To conclude, atheist, despite your refusal of admitting your mistake, have made great contribution to science in the last century and a half. I did mentioned some agnostic, but no deist unless you can prove it otherwise. You claimed that atheist didn't done anything of worth and that the most important scientist was religious and thus, religion is correct and atheism wrong. As I have already mentioned, that's a fallacy.
I showed a list of the scientist which I knew and which are amongst the greatest, which include both atheist and agnostic, to prove that religious affiliation of a scientist doesn't validate a particular belief. Proof and only proof will. I don't think atheism to be correct, however I do think that it's better than religion.
I know perfectly what agnosticism is, but you still do not know what a proof is and you are simply unable to admit your mistakes. Atheist had a relevant impact, period. I do not need to agree to their philosophy to acknowledge this.

Few is relative, and anything worth to humanity is either a lie, or another misconception of yours. Read the revised list again. They are only few because religion used to threat and oppress scientist and thus they learned to keep their mouth shut. Taking Newton and hailing him as the best Scientist is fine, I agree with that perception.
But, religion doesn't makes him a better scientist and if he would live in our century, I am confident he would have been agnostic, because it's the most logical thing to do. His feelings for atheist are not proof of the invalidity of their "belief" or method. If we take any observations as proof for any theory there is, then, UFO encounters, people with godly powers, ghost and other supernatural phenomena must be true, they are not. The fact is, they have to be supported by logic, mathematical model and empirical evidence.
Something must be proven in order to be scientifically accepted. God is not proven, Miracle are not proven, and to our knowledge Jesus was an ordinary man. Logic tell us that something needs a cause, there if no god there is no "miracle". There is a reason why it's called faith.

Additionally, you seem to misunderstand the difference between most known and influential. Besides, I gave a small list but it doesn't mean that they are that few. Wikipedia seem to have their own, I am not sure what the reliability of it though.

"Plato attacked atheism numerous times."
You are committing a fallacy. The fact that he was religious didn't make him a great scientist. Nor his attack on atheism. He lived in the past. By your logic, we should also believe that everything is made up of the 4 elements described by Aristotle because he layed the foundation to Western philosophy too. Your argument is ridiculous.

The quote is correct, your reasoning is not. I did not bring him up because I thought he was atheist. I listed scientist which were not religious, and that the tendency is that, since the end of the 19th century, most of the greatest scientists were not religious.
Hereby, it contradicts your argument that only religious scientist had influence on humanity's progress.
Scientist before that were religious only because it was the norm, not because it's logical. It's not a fallacy if you consider all of the arguments in the debate and not the original proposition.
It is not my scheme to write straw man arguments, it is you who deemed them as such in order to cover your lack of a proper counter. If anything, you used straw man argument since I begun to debate with you.

To my knowledge is no lies here, only lack of understanding. Unless, you are admitting your sins of course. In fact, the only lie is that "atheist contributed nothing". Hey, those are your words, so don't beat me up with that stick. Though,I see you changed the description. You know what that is? It's called hypocrisy.
In any case, I am mentioning them because:
Firstly - They all believed organized religions to be corrupt in some way or another.
Secondly- You haven't mentioned neither Marie and Pierre curie.
Thirdly- You forgot some of their achievements.
Finally- At the very least, Dirac, Chadwick and Marrie and Pierre Currie were atheist. I admit there is a possibility that Edison was agnostic.

I mentioned Einstein because I share his belief. We cannot prove or disprove the existence of a God. As I aforementioned, it was a list of both atheist and agnostic scientist.

About Edison. Wow, getting cranky are we? I haven't made anything up but as our debates progress, I am starting to doubt the legitimacy of your own "knowledge". You can find many different claims on the same thing on the Web. However, some are more reliable source than others. without further ado, prove this wrong:
"I have never seen the slightest scientific proof of the religious theories of heaven and hell, of future life for individuals, or of a personal God. [Thomas Alva Edison, Columbian Magazine]"
"So far as religion of the day is concerned, it is a damned fake... Religion is all bunk. [Thomas Edison]"
I may have taken it to an extreme, but if this isn't at least an agnostic speaking, well then, I guess you can consider me a deist too. He didn't believed in a God, period.

This is how a space marine shave.

Like a sir.
┌─┐
┴─┴
ಠ_ರೃ

Well, it demonstrate one indisputable fact, eventually, man < machine.

"And what have these scientists contributed that has been of any worth? Nothing."
That's an absurd conclusion. It doesn't mean that because you do not understand their works or the implications that they did not contributed anything. It simply demonstrate your ignorance.
I won't ask to "Try Again" because I do not think it will be productive. You are wrong once again and you are splitting hairs. I did not reach out of context, however you infer things that will satisfy your theories.
My point stands, your claim was foolish. Stop making outrageous claims and I will stop proving you wrong.
"It's better to remain silent and be thought a fool than open ones mouth and remove all doubt"-Samuel Langhorne Clemens (A.K.A. Mark Twain)

Einstein views on religion:
"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment."
He declared himself agnostic because he believe that the problem was too complex for our "simple minds". That a fair point, but it doesn't invalidate atheism. Nor does it erase from history the progress that atheists (and agnostic) have brought to humanity.

Finally, in regards to Richard Dawkins:
To my knowledge he hasn't opposed the concept of religion as much as he lead a crusade against those who praised the the theories of creationism an intelligent design and thereby discarding Darwinian evolution. He advocate atheism with enthusiasms no doubt, but attacking religion I believe is incorrect. However, I admit that I only seen a few of his debate(maybe around 6, in length, about hour each),so I may be wrong. He may not have written anything groundbreaking to date, but he has influence as a evolutionary biologist and that alone makes him someone important, whether you agree with him or not, is irrelevant. Aristotle was also wrong, it doesn't mean he was a bad or an unimportant scientist.

-J. Robert Oppenheimer(agnostic, or, undeclared follower of Hinduism): works on the theory of electrons and positrons, the Oppenheimer–Phillips process in nuclear fusion, and the first prediction of quantum tunneling. Amongst other things.
-Linus Pauling(Atheist): Published several papers and won a Nobel prize for his works on the structure of proteins(including the alpha helix structure)
-Enrico Fermi(agnostic): Transmutation by neutron irradiation, Theory of beta decay, Nobel prize for his work on induced radioactivity. Amongst many others
-Max Planck(Agnostic): Black body radiation theory, plank constant and the plank's law. Amongst others
-John Forbes Nash, Jr.(*assumed* agnostic):Won the Nobel economic prize, works in partial differential equation, works in Algebraic geometry, and game theory.
-Carl Sagan(Agnostic): Mostly known for his works on extraterrestrial life and production of amino acid from basic by radiation.
-Neils Bohr(Atheist): Borh-Rutherford model of the Atom for which he won the Nobel prize of physics, participated in the making of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics.
-Nicola Tesla(spiritual, but not religious. Quote or link to prove he was a theist? I got plenty who says otherwise): The radio,even thought it has been popularized as a invention by Marconi, alternating current distribution, remote control, the first AC electric motor, amongst many others.

I presume that it was a quick search... And half of the list are agnostics? Not to my knowledge no. 10 vs 6 and one still unknown(tesla).

About Carl Sagan:
He has done more for me than religion has so far. That is, seeking proof. SETI might not find life, but at least, whether it is in 10 years, a century, or in a millennium, it will eventually have a definite answer to whether there is extraterrestrial life or not. Religion can not offer me that luxury as to whether there is a god or not, no matter how long I wait.

Rubbish! Could you please do your research properly next time?
Besides I clearly stated "A few notable atheist and agnostic scientist". Also, I can tell from memory the discoveries that many of them have done, I simply do not have 3 hours to burn each day on your rants against atheist. While I do not consider myself one, dismissing some scientist contribution to science for their mere "beliefs" is prejudice and insensate.
Here, a few clarifications:
-Philip W. Anderson(Atheist):Nobel prize winner in physics for works on Q.E.D.
-James Chadwick(Atheist): Nobel prize for Discovery of the neutron, worked on the Manhattan project.
-Albert Einstein(Agnostic):Special relativity, General relativity, discovery of the photoelectric effect. Amongst other things.
-Paul Dirac(Atheist): Won the Nobel prize for his equation describing fermions, predicted antimatter.
-Richard Dawkins(recently converted to agnosticism apparently): published few academic papers on evolution, I do not know the real significance of them to be honest. However, he has his own foundation dedicated to research, that alone makes him a relevant scientist.
-Steven Hawking(Atheist): Hawking radiation and his
Singularity theorems.
-Marie and Pierre Curie(Atheist): Discovery of radium and polonium, isotope extraction method, radioactivity theory.
-Thomas Edison(full blown atheist, where did you took deism from? Pantheist is a possibility but still unlikely): invented the light-bulb, the tin foil phonograph and has patented over 1000 inventions.

*It

"Yeah, the concept of genetic memory comes from Assassin's Creed."
I thought so. I can tell from the avatar =P.
A) I agree
B) I agree
C)I agree
=)

*sigh*
I will reply to this later...

To prevent that I am accused of evading your "questions", I have one more thing to say.
I acknowledge that out universe is in some degree perfectly balanced to sustain life. But that doesn't prove the existence of a creator either. A much more plausible theory, which is explainable by mathematics, is the M-theory or any theory that constitute a multiverse rather than a universe. Thus our universe would merely exist out of probability, because others, would have been "failures". Problem resolved. And I also acknowledge we haven't proven it but at least that theory fits with existing mathematical model whereas, the god theory does not. It is also logical. The only component missing is the empirical proof. The god theory lack of all three. Unless you can prove me otherwise I will no longer participate in this endeavor to reason with you. I will however retort to claims if I feel some need corrections by scientific facts, like your dismissal of notable atheist scientist for instance.
I presented proof, if they are not accepted,I can progress no further. My works is done. If I no longer respond to your tiresome postulate, it's not out of ignorance or disrespect but I would rather not waste my time if possible.
Have an excellent day.

-"Because in order to get the conclusion you need to combine science, logic and mathematics together."
Exactly, and this is what you fail to do. This is why your 0+0=0 is worth exactly zero proof.
-No logic state that something has a cause but not necessarily a beginning, it doesn't mean that if our universe didn't exist, it didn't had a cause. Nor does it state that something need a creator in order to be created.
Oh what the hell, I am wasting my breath.

All in all, you haven't proven anything...
Besides, sources like blogspot.someonewhohasopionions.com doesn't impress me. Show me an academic paper wrote by a notable scientist which can prove God, and I can guarantee that if he's really a scientist, you won't find any.

Some of the ancients have also proven religion to be foolish, people such as Aristarchus of Samos, Socrate and Epicurus.
""Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"
- Epicurus"
Plato was wrong and so are you. Notwithstanding the fact, we should have evolved from these ancient times. So please use, reason, enough with your credulous assumptions.
"Even if this were true, you would have to base your argument on blind faith, assumptions and coincidences occurring on a huge scale and magically getting everything right and just perfect and balanced without the thought of a mind."
You assume that mind exist in the first place, your assumption is equally if not more flawed than mine.
You are arguing the Hen came before the egg, while I argue neither. The DNA came first; the basic instructions.
Still waiting for the proof, mysticism/axioms/postulate doesn't count.

"If I would have to set a date on this I would probably set it in year 2040 or 2050."
You're such a pessimist =).

Hmmmm okay....ಠ_ಠ

Now comes in cyan, yellow and magenta =).

lol indeed =D.

Hence, Star trek > Star wars.
I gonna get flamed =).

"For purpose - doesn't that make shadow above banks?"
Depends. On one hand, it makes the consumer confused, that's true, on the other, it somewhat creates competitions. I do not have enough data to tell whether it help or makes things worst....
However, I know that people are blaming the banks for the financial collapse. Though, they were buying houses costing 7-10 times their annual salaries. WTF were they thinking?
Anyways, all of the banks(well maybe not ALL of them) are backed by Government Subsidies. That's not Capitalism, it's socialism. If a banks takes risk, they need to account for it.

Debt is virtual money. So yea, I suppose it can be problematic at a large scale, but in a sense it does make money too.
"Maybe going back to gold is not a bad idea. Nobody can fake it, nobody can make more than he has. Imagine that your coins are really from gold and silver, that they have real value..."
Yea I think that would be for the best, but I am unsure if it won't have any severe downsides.

*Warren Buffett, Bill Gates.