Atheists Are Smart

Born in Aldershot, Hampshire, Ian McEwan is considered by many to be one of the finest novelists of his generation in the U.K. From the beginning of his career, his work has been characterized by an extremism verging on cynical detachment with respect to his main subjects: sex, death, and moral evil. But it is with Black Dogs in 1992 that his books begin to acquire an explicitly theological dimension. In his recent work, McEwan’s heroes tend to be raionalists who are almost crushed by the irrational forces threatening them. He has written that “Atheists have as much conscience, possibly more, than people with deep religious convictions.”

Atoms are constructed of two types of elementary particles: electrons and quarks.
Electrons occupy a space that surrounds an atom's nucleus. Each electron has an electrical charge of -1.
Quarks make up protons and neutrons, which, in turn, make up an atom's nucleus. Each proton and each neutron contains three quarks.
A quark is a fast-moving point of energy. There are several varieties of quarks. Protons and neutrons are composed of two types: up quarks and down quarks.

Phillip Roth, author of over 30 highly acclaimed books, Roth is considered by many to be America’s greatest living novelist. A perennial Nobel Prize candidate, he has won every major American literary prize. Roth grew up in a Jewish family in Newark, New Jersey, but his unsparing depictions of his largely Jewish characters have been controversial within the American Jewish community. His always pronounced misanthropy has taken on an explicitly atheistic tenor in his late books, with their dominant theme of human frailty, futility, and the finality of death. He has said in a recent interview: “When the whole world doesn’t believe in God, it’ll be a great place.”

See how it works?

You all know that FLRW is Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker metric don't you?

 Richard Carrier (b. 1969) is a historian, author, and blogger. He received a Ph.D. in ancient history from Columbia University in 2008. As a crusading atheist, Carrier’s specialty is attacking the historicity of the New Testament. He has said that he thinks it “very probable Jesus never actually existed as a historical person” (original emphasis). He has also been an active promoter of atheism on the Internet, formerly serving as Editor-in-Chief of the Internet Infidels/Secular Web site. He now runs the Naturalism as a Worldview web site, as well as a blog. He also participates in numerous public debates with Christians.

There is your answer.

You were wrong that atoms are the core things, it is either fields, strings or simulation coding (or multiple at once)

Touche'

It is unclear to me why you would make any such assumption.  I have not said, nor implied, that.

I am a Christian and believe in God.

lol . . . that the best you've got? 

Yes, OK, now why are there so many religions? Here’s where things get interesting. A much better explanation can be derived by taking seriously the existence of the thousands and thousands of religions. It is not a side-effect; it is the key. Taking this fact seriously means looking for an explanation of religion that has as a consequence the fact that there should be thousands and thousands of religions. We need to look only as far as evolutionary theory. There are thousands and thousands of religions because being religious is an evolutionary adaptation. Evolution produces lots of variation within the parameters of a given type of adaptation (there is a huge variety of feathers, for example). If religions were or are doing something positive for human well-being and psychology (even if religions cause many serious problems) then religiosity will be preserved. But if the religious details don’t matter, then evolutionary theory predicts that there will be thousands of religions. Which is in fact what we see.

The only thing that is interesting to me about what you said is how, psychologically, you came to believe it. 

I disagree with essentially all of what you wrote. 

Note as well that, without regard to how you reached the conclusions you did, it is clear you lack even a basic understanding of the difference between the physical and the metaphysical.  So, without that basic conceptual distinction in place, we cannot productively discuss your ideas.  

Watching you talk about God is like watching Gwyneth Paltrow talk about medicine.  It's actually pretty funny, at a distance. 

It will be interesting to see what people will say when they review these posts 100,000 years from now.

That English is even inteligible at that time is hardly likely.  

I agree, it will be Mandarin.

The smartest people don't engage in pointlessness like this. There is nothing to gain ,nothing to lose and nothing will be accomplished. It's the same as arguing 1+1 doesn't equal 2. Intelligence attributed to a belief system. The irrefutable scientific facts don't give a shit what you believe.

The simple truth.

No more required.

Bongo....Hey Bingo how did that happen?

Bingo.....It must have been  be a GOD what did it.

Bongo....What's a GOD Bingo?

Bingo....It's the magic bloke what lives in the sky.

Bongo....Amazing....How do you know that?

Bingo....Bungo told me so.