You got me. Now I believe in Jesus.:rolleyes:
What was wrong with my response?
Intelligent Design (as you probably know – just for completeness’ sake) is one of these dishonest and cult-like movements that’s a form of Creationism.
Was not Mary banged in a big way?
I suspect that most people on this board are atheists for the same reason that most Americans are atheists. The folks here on this board just aren’t afraid of social opprobrium from admitting it. But there are an awful lot of atheists in church pews.
Why? One form of creationism is just as ridiculous as any other.
I opened the thread hoping for an answer not to provide one. I thought the question might bring out interesting angles on the “why” of Atheism. I was wrong.
It was was addressed adequately in #2, the rest has just been for fun.
Blame the OP, I should think. The title had nothing to do with the post.
Having read the OP and the responses, my take on the OP is that (a) the Big Bang did not happen, (b) but Divine Creationism did, and (c) in light of these obvious facts, how come so many on this board are dirty rotten non-believing infidels? We are asked to discuss this, although apparently the OP himself has lost interest will not be participating. 
There should be an award for this type of thread.
There is also the fact that the board, myself included at times, tends to be hostile to people who fall outside of certain groups (atheists, liberals, pseudoskeptics, etc). So I’m sure a lot of religious people just keep it to themselves to avoid being treated rudely.
From the mating of Gaia and Uranus, to be specific. And there’s a sacred book that says so. How ya gonna argue with a sacred book?
This is my favorite. If you believe that humans were made by something greater and it has to be that way because how else could it be then the next link on the logic chain would be to say that who made the creator of man then It would have to be something greater than the creator of mankind/ Wouldn’t it if you are following your own logic? I have made several atheist over the decades starting in high school at age 17 51 years ago.
You can always throw in “If monkeys turned into people why are there still monkeys?” Actually taught in the church affiliated school where my nephew went 20 years ago, and he still says it with a smirk on his face as if it made sense.
If that were the case then why did he start this thread? Dude’s been a member since 2009 after all.
It’s really important to remember, and understand, that law here is descriptive and not proscriptive.
There’s no law that say photons can’t exceed the speed of light, the law is that we don’t observe photons exceeding a certain speed, C. The law doesn’t prevent photons from doing things it describes what they actually do.
If the Big Bang violates the Laws of Thermodynamics then either;
What is being observed is not, in fact, a violation of the Laws of Thermodynamics.
or
What is being observed requires that the Laws of Thermodynamics be amended to accurately describe reality.
CMC fnord!
Interesting observation. I’d also like to suggest that we don’t actually know that nothing existed prior to the Big Bang - it’s just as far back as we can observe, at least with current (and I admit, any probable future) instruments. There’s no particular reason to assume that nothing existed prior to the BB, hence all “something can’t come from nothing” arguments prove, well, nothing.
Yes, and the “something can’t come from nothing” arguments are just as totally irrelevant as Lawrence Krauss’ “something can come from nothing” arguments based on quantum fluctuations in vacuum, because empty space isn’t “nothing”. It is, for one thing, space – something that didn’t exist before the BB, and which has a whole host of interesting properties. The whole argument becomes a silly semantic one rather than a testable scientific hypothesis, beginning with the fact that “prior to the BB” doesn’t mean anything since the BB created space-time. It also created matter, energy, and the laws of physics by which we understand the universe, so it makes no sense to try to use those laws to describe preconditions for the BB that created them. All our ruminations about such preconditions are entirely speculative and more philosophy than science. I myself am just amazed and grateful that we know as much about the origin of the universe as we do. It’s the result of science at its very finest.
Because the majority of posters on this board have a critical and more scientific leaning outlook. I don’t think the board is actually ‘overwhelmingly atheist’ btw…I’d guess that it’s a higher percentage than the population at large (in whatever country you care to compare it too), but it’s still less than 50%. Just a WAG on my part though.
The dude was freaking French! 
(Plus, and this might be something that very few people know, he was born in 1822 and died before the 1900s…and that was a bit of time ago. I know, I know…it’s hard to keep up. But seriously, we’ve had a few things change in the last hundred odd years or so, you know? You might want to catch back up…)
Well, you might want to start with your proof of this. What IS the ‘laws of thermodynamics’ according to you? Because the one I learned in college…well, it doesn’t. But maybe YOUR theory is different, so we should start with your definitions of both ‘Big bang theory’ (and why you only capitalized Big but not band and theory) and ‘laws of thermodynamics’.
It might make the ‘debate’ more entertaining. Also, what DO you want to debate here? The question of why the board is ‘overwhelmingly atheist’? Pasteur’s (hundred plus year old) theories? The ‘Big bang theory’ (the show on TV? Some strawman of the theory?)? Or the ‘laws of thermodynamics’??
Imagine scientists one day realizing that.
“Oh shit! There are still monkeys! Look! That means…that means we were wrong all along…”