'The word God is for me nothing but the expression and product of human weaknesses,' Einstein wrote to Gutkind, 'the Bible a collection of venerable but still rather primitive legends. No interpretation, no matter how subtle, can (for me) change anything about this. '-Albert Einstein
"There is no God," wrote Stephen Hawking, "No one directs the universe."
First of all, opium gives you hope. Opium is there for peace of mind, for a purpose in life. Fake religion does not.
Pseudohermaphroditism is when a person has the chromosomes of a man, but the external genitals are incompletely formed, ambiguous, or clearly female. Internally, testes may be normal, malformed, or absent. This condition is also called 46, XY with undervirilization. Didn't God know anything about quality control?
A human is made up of 37.2 trillion cells. Why would something be made of that many parts?
I declined. I don't hate Islam, I am not a Trump. I just can't understand how any intelligent person can believe in any religion. I do believe in Stephen Hawking.
In his inaugural address of January 20, 2017, the newly sworn-in president of the United States, Donald J. Trump, announced that “We will […] unite the civilized world against Radical Islamic Terrorism, which we will eradicate completely from the face of the Earth”.
From atheists.org. Who whould know more about atheists? Atheism is one thing: A lack of belief in gods.
Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods. Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system.
The genetic DNA similarity between pigs and human beings is 98%. Interspecies organ transplant activities between humans and pigs have even taken place, called xenotransplants.
Albert Einstein wrote to Gutkind, 'the Bible a collection of venerable but still rather primitive legends. No interpretation, no matter how subtle, can (for me) change anything about this. '
For cosmologists, the origin of the universe is clear. They can see that galaxies are accelerating away from each other and when they play this motion in reverse, the universe contracts to a single event. This suggests it all began some 14 billion years ago in an event we now call the Big Bang.
By contrast, cosmologists are less clear how it will all end. One possibility is that the expansion of the universe will continue to accelerate, driven by a mysterious force called dark energy. In that case the expansion will be infinite and forever.
But another option is that the role of dark energy will lessen over time, causing the accelerated expansion to stop and transition smoothly into a slow contraction. This possibility dovetails neatly with the idea that the universe is continually expanding and contracting in an ongoing cycle.
The letter in which Einstein made those comments is pretty famous. In January 1954, Albert Einstein wrote a letter to Jewish philosopher Eric Gutkind, in which the physicist responded to Gutkind's book Choose Life: The Biblical Call to Revolt. Gutkind's book, as this Commentary review explains, sought to reconcile religion, science and humanism, by drawing upon scripture to urge people to bring about a better world. Einstein, who had read the book at the urging of a friend, wasn't buying it. In his letter, Einstein dismissed the concept of God and religion altogether. "The word God is for me nothing but the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of venerable but still rather primitive legends. No interpretation, no matter how subtle, can (for me) change anything about this," he wrote. The letter sold in an auction in 2018 for $2.9 million..
Einstein, a Jew, was harsh in his view of Judaism, which he wrote in the letter was "like all other religions, an incarnation of primitive superstition."
Einstein said in 1954, one year before he died, "The word 'God' is for me nothing but the expression and product of human weaknesses; the Bible a collection of honorable but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish,"
So yes, I think like Albert Einstein. Maybe that's why I got into Harvard and MIT.
I am am atheist, and it makes no sense to me how religion is such a thing and why many people follow it. It is clear and evident that God does not exist anymore.
Well, I think like Albert Einstein and religious people think like Tammy Faye.
Zeno’s arrow paradox says that motion is impossible. However quantum mechanics says that the underlying assumption is wrong.
Assumption: in any given moment, an arrow in flight is motionless. Then it remains stationary at every moment. Thus the arrow never moves. Mazur, Joseph; The motion paradox (New York: Dutton), p. 4-5.
Here is quantum mechanics explanation:
One striking aspect of the difference between classical and quantum physics is that whereas classical mechanics presupposes that exact simultaneous values can be assigned to all physical quantities, quantum mechanics denies this possibility, the prime example being the position and momentum of a particle. According to quantum mechanics, the more precisely the position (momentum) of a particle is given, the less precisely can one say what its momentum (position) is. This is (a simplistic and preliminary formulation of) the quantum mechanical uncertainty principle for position and momentum. “The Uncertainty Principle”, SEP. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-uncertainty/
It appears that quantum mechanics says that the initial assumption is wrong. The arrow paradox assumes certainty of both position (stationary) and momentum (none). That premise allows the distances over a range of moments to add up to zero. But quantum mechanics says that part of this assumption can never be known.
(1) If the position of the arrow is known to a certainty, then its momentum is unknown. The arrow might be moving at that moment. The possibility of movement resolves the paradox by allowing for momentum at any given instant.
(2) If the momentum (zero) is known to a certainty, then its position is unknown. The arrow might be in any of a range of places. If the arrow might be anywhere over a range of places, then it must be moving.
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world.
There are several weaknesses in the Cosmological Argument, which make it unable to “prove” the existence of God by itself. One is that if it is not possible for a person to conceive of an infinite process of causation, without a beginning, how is it possible for the same individual to conceive of a being that is infinite and without beginning? The idea that causation is not an infinite process is being introduced as a given, without any reasons to show why it could not exist.
Clarke (1675-1729) has offered a version of the Cosmological Argument, which many philosophers consider superior. The “Argument from Contingency” examines how every being must be either necessary or contingent. Since not every being can be contingent, it follow that there must be a necessary being upon which all things depend. This being is God. Even though this method of reasoning may be superior to the traditional Cosmological Argument, it is still not without its weaknesses. One of its weaknesses has been called the “Fallacy of Composition”. The form of the mistake is this: Every member of a collection of dependent beings is accounted for by some explanation. Therefore, the collection of dependent beings is accounted for by one explanation. This argument will fail in trying to reason that there is only one first cause or one necessary cause, i.e. one God .
There are those who maintain that there is no sufficient reason to believe that there exists a self existent being.
COUNTER ARGUMENTS:
1. If there is a cause for everything then what caused the first cause (god).
2.If the first cause can be thought to be uncaused and a necessary being existing forever, then why not consider that the universe itself has always existed and shall always exist and go through a never ending cycle of expansion and contraction and then expansion (big bang) again and again!!!
If there is to be a deity that is the exception from the requirement that all existing things need a cause then the same exception can be made for the sum of all energy that exists, considering that it manifests in different forms.
What the counter argument does is to indicate that the premises of the cosmological argument do not necessarily lead to the conclusion that there is a being that is responsible for the creation of the universe.
3) Further, even if a person wanted to accept that there was such a being there is nothing at all in the cosmological argument to indicate that the being would have any of the properties of humans that are projected into the concept of the deity of any particular religion. The first mover or first cause is devoid of any other characteristic.
So the cosmological argument is neither a valid argument in requiring the truth of its conclusion nor is it a satisfactory argument to prove the existence of any being that would have awareness of the existence of the universe or any event within it.
When a person asks questions such as :
1 What is the cause of the the energy or the force or the agent behind the expansion and contraction of the energy?
These questions are considered as "loaded questions" because they loaded or contain assumptions about what exists or is true that have not yet been established. Why is it that the idea of a "force " or agent" is even in the question? Why operate with the assumption that there is such or needs to be such?
We do not know that there is a force "behind" the expansion and contraction. Energy might just expand and contract and there is no force at all other than those generated by the energy-gravitational force, electro magnetic, strong and weak forces.
In another form this is the "who made god?" question or the" who made the energy question?" question. Such an approach to the issue of an explanation for the existence of the universe assumes that there must be an agency. When the idea of an eternal and necessary agency is introduced it was done to provide a form for describing a being that some people wanted as the ultimate explanation- a deity. The point of the counter arguments to the cosmological argument is that the idea of an eternal and necessary agency can as logically be expressed as energy rather than as a single being or entity. If the uncaused cause can be thought of a a single entity then the uncaused cause can be thought of a a single process-energy.
This is an excellent scientific paper on the subject.
Science and Evolution
Claudia A.M. Russo 1 and Thiago André 2
Abstract
Evolution is both a fact and a theory. Evolution is widely observable in laboratory and natural populations as they change over time. The fact that we need annual flu vaccines is one example of observable evolution. At the same time, evolutionary theory explains more than observations, as the succession on the fossil record. Hence, evolution is also the scientific theory that embodies biology, including all organisms and their characteristics. In this paper, we emphasize why evolution is the most important theory in biology. Evolution explains every biological detail, similar to how history explains many aspects of a current political situation. Only evolution explains the patterns observed in the fossil record. Examples include the succession in the fossil record; we cannot find the easily fossilized mammals before 300 million years ago; after the extinction of the dinosaurs, the fossil record indicates that mammals and birds radiated throughout the planet. Additionally, the fact that we are able to construct fairly consistent phylogenetic trees using distinct genetic markers in the genome is only explained by evolutionary theory. Finally, we show that the processes that drive evolution, both on short and long time scales, are observable facts.
In Con's arguments, he states "Con: The definition of atheism entails a belief in the non-existence of anygods. " I will be using the "anygods" in my ranking of his
Better spelling and grammar.
Wasn't Jesus LGBT? The NIV translation of Matt 5:22 reads “anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the court”. The original Greek text does not include “sister”, and the word “raca” is most likely a transliteration of the Aramaic word “rakkah”, which is the feminine form of the adjective that means “to be tender, weak, or soft”, so this would be comparable to calling a man a “sissy” (or worse).
Lord Ganesha is also knonw as Ganapati, Vighnaharta, Vinayak and elephant head god in India, Is the most worshipped deities in the Hinduism and is the supreme deity. Ganapati is a popular figure in Indian art and worshipped on all religious occasions, especially at the beginning of all ventures.
I ask PGA2.0 why he thinks Lord Ganesha does not exist?
I well be using the following as I prepare my vote.
How should one use the words disbelief and non-belief especially when it relates to the belief in god?
I tend to think of a disbeliever as someone who actively rejects a belief, often campaigning against it, while a non-believer is someone whose lack of belief is more passive, often as a result of never having been presented with the belief as an option. For me someone who was brought up as a Christian or Muslim but turned atheist would be a disbeliever while a member of a remote tribe who had never met a missionary would be a non-believer.
From the FBI Website: Election Crimes and Security
Fair elections are the foundation of our democracy, and the FBI is committed to protecting the rights of all Americans to vote.
The U.S. government only works when legal votes are counted and when campaigns follow the law. When the legitimacy of elections is corrupted, our democracy is threatened.
While individual states run elections, the FBI plays an important role in protecting federal interests and preventing violations of your constitutional rights.
How can we explain the beginning of theism? Well,recognizing the evolutionary roots of much of human behavior, it seems that a psychological susceptibility to belief in God is the result of adaptive design. That hypothesis would only make sense if indeed there were behaviors associated with such susceptibility that made us genetically successful. Just as canine teeth evolved to help people rip the flesh off bones, could a belief in God have evolved to help people tear off bits of meaning from an otherwise meaningless existence? Or perhaps God is simply a spandrel—an architectural term (for an ornamental arch) adopted by Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Lewontin to indicate a biological feature that is passed down part and parcel with another trait and is not on its own a product of natural selection. God might be an accidental by-product of human cognitive evolution, a functionless leftover of the capacity to reason about other human minds in the everyday social world, as cognitive scientists such as Pascal Boyer of Washington University in St. Louis believe.
From American Atheists: Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods. Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system. To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.
Well, we will see what the new research at the Large Hadron Collider shows. LHC experts will work around the clock to progressively recommission the machine and safely ramp up the energy and intensity of the beams before delivering collisions to the experiments at a record energy of 13.6 trillion electronvolts (13.6 TeV).
This third run of the LHC, called Run 3, will see the machine’s experiments collecting data from collisions not only at a record energy but also in unparalleled numbers. The ATLAS and CMS experiments can each expect to receive more collisions during this physics run than in the two previous physics runs combined, while LHCb, which underwent a complete revamp during the shutdown, can hope to see its collision count increase by a factor of three. Meanwhile, ALICE, a specialised detector for studying heavy-ion collisions, can expect a fifty times increase in the total number of recorded ion collisions, thanks to the recent completion of a major upgrade.
The unprecedented number of collisions will allow international teams of physicists at CERN and across the world to study the Higgs boson in great detail and put the Standard Model of particle physics and its various extensions to the most stringent tests yet.
Well, I do have a Harvard COOP card. Sorry, I'm just working on my Silver Medal.
You are on Earth for one reason only. That is to promote evolution. Look around you, there are filthy rich stupid people and kids dying of cancer.
'The word God is for me nothing but the expression and product of human weaknesses,' Einstein wrote to Gutkind, 'the Bible a collection of venerable but still rather primitive legends. No interpretation, no matter how subtle, can (for me) change anything about this. '-Albert Einstein
"There is no God," wrote Stephen Hawking, "No one directs the universe."
First of all, opium gives you hope. Opium is there for peace of mind, for a purpose in life. Fake religion does not.
Religion is the opium of the people.
When I was in Japan in the 1980's, everybody was wearing a mask in public.
"due to being a weak little community of human worms."
I like your reference to Worm Man.
Isn't there a Presidential review of debate topics?
I am going to start a debate that goes: It says God in the Bible. I will be Pro.
Pseudohermaphroditism is when a person has the chromosomes of a man, but the external genitals are incompletely formed, ambiguous, or clearly female. Internally, testes may be normal, malformed, or absent. This condition is also called 46, XY with undervirilization. Didn't God know anything about quality control?
A human is made up of 37.2 trillion cells. Why would something be made of that many parts?
I believe in Stephen Hawking because I saw him at MIT in 1994.
I declined. I don't hate Islam, I am not a Trump. I just can't understand how any intelligent person can believe in any religion. I do believe in Stephen Hawking.
I can't believe I'm saying this, but I have to agree with rayhan16 on this one.
In his inaugural address of January 20, 2017, the newly sworn-in president of the United States, Donald J. Trump, announced that “We will […] unite the civilized world against Radical Islamic Terrorism, which we will eradicate completely from the face of the Earth”.
Roger !
From atheists.org. Who whould know more about atheists? Atheism is one thing: A lack of belief in gods.
Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods. Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system.
I'm working on my 5 page argument supporting your position.
Actually, in my opinion, Atheists know there is no God.
What can go wrong when the Human body is made up of 37.2 trillion cells?
Someday, Trophy Hunters from Outer Space might have a great time on Earth.
The genetic DNA similarity between pigs and human beings is 98%. Interspecies organ transplant activities between humans and pigs have even taken place, called xenotransplants.
Albert Einstein wrote to Gutkind, 'the Bible a collection of venerable but still rather primitive legends. No interpretation, no matter how subtle, can (for me) change anything about this. '
Why did Jesus say, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”
For cosmologists, the origin of the universe is clear. They can see that galaxies are accelerating away from each other and when they play this motion in reverse, the universe contracts to a single event. This suggests it all began some 14 billion years ago in an event we now call the Big Bang.
By contrast, cosmologists are less clear how it will all end. One possibility is that the expansion of the universe will continue to accelerate, driven by a mysterious force called dark energy. In that case the expansion will be infinite and forever.
But another option is that the role of dark energy will lessen over time, causing the accelerated expansion to stop and transition smoothly into a slow contraction. This possibility dovetails neatly with the idea that the universe is continually expanding and contracting in an ongoing cycle.
Very well stated.
No, he is saying God is Gravity.
The letter in which Einstein made those comments is pretty famous. In January 1954, Albert Einstein wrote a letter to Jewish philosopher Eric Gutkind, in which the physicist responded to Gutkind's book Choose Life: The Biblical Call to Revolt. Gutkind's book, as this Commentary review explains, sought to reconcile religion, science and humanism, by drawing upon scripture to urge people to bring about a better world. Einstein, who had read the book at the urging of a friend, wasn't buying it. In his letter, Einstein dismissed the concept of God and religion altogether. "The word God is for me nothing but the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of venerable but still rather primitive legends. No interpretation, no matter how subtle, can (for me) change anything about this," he wrote. The letter sold in an auction in 2018 for $2.9 million..
Einstein, a Jew, was harsh in his view of Judaism, which he wrote in the letter was "like all other religions, an incarnation of primitive superstition."
I also think like Stephen Hawking.
Einstein said in 1954, one year before he died, "The word 'God' is for me nothing but the expression and product of human weaknesses; the Bible a collection of honorable but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish,"
So yes, I think like Albert Einstein. Maybe that's why I got into Harvard and MIT.
I am am atheist, and it makes no sense to me how religion is such a thing and why many people follow it. It is clear and evident that God does not exist anymore.
Well, I think like Albert Einstein and religious people think like Tammy Faye.
Nice link.
Unfortunetly, nothing exists independently of human sense and/or perception.
Zeno’s arrow paradox says that motion is impossible. However quantum mechanics says that the underlying assumption is wrong.
Assumption: in any given moment, an arrow in flight is motionless. Then it remains stationary at every moment. Thus the arrow never moves. Mazur, Joseph; The motion paradox (New York: Dutton), p. 4-5.
Here is quantum mechanics explanation:
One striking aspect of the difference between classical and quantum physics is that whereas classical mechanics presupposes that exact simultaneous values can be assigned to all physical quantities, quantum mechanics denies this possibility, the prime example being the position and momentum of a particle. According to quantum mechanics, the more precisely the position (momentum) of a particle is given, the less precisely can one say what its momentum (position) is. This is (a simplistic and preliminary formulation of) the quantum mechanical uncertainty principle for position and momentum. “The Uncertainty Principle”, SEP. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-uncertainty/
It appears that quantum mechanics says that the initial assumption is wrong. The arrow paradox assumes certainty of both position (stationary) and momentum (none). That premise allows the distances over a range of moments to add up to zero. But quantum mechanics says that part of this assumption can never be known.
(1) If the position of the arrow is known to a certainty, then its momentum is unknown. The arrow might be moving at that moment. The possibility of movement resolves the paradox by allowing for momentum at any given instant.
(2) If the momentum (zero) is known to a certainty, then its position is unknown. The arrow might be in any of a range of places. If the arrow might be anywhere over a range of places, then it must be moving.
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world.
There are several weaknesses in the Cosmological Argument, which make it unable to “prove” the existence of God by itself. One is that if it is not possible for a person to conceive of an infinite process of causation, without a beginning, how is it possible for the same individual to conceive of a being that is infinite and without beginning? The idea that causation is not an infinite process is being introduced as a given, without any reasons to show why it could not exist.
Clarke (1675-1729) has offered a version of the Cosmological Argument, which many philosophers consider superior. The “Argument from Contingency” examines how every being must be either necessary or contingent. Since not every being can be contingent, it follow that there must be a necessary being upon which all things depend. This being is God. Even though this method of reasoning may be superior to the traditional Cosmological Argument, it is still not without its weaknesses. One of its weaknesses has been called the “Fallacy of Composition”. The form of the mistake is this: Every member of a collection of dependent beings is accounted for by some explanation. Therefore, the collection of dependent beings is accounted for by one explanation. This argument will fail in trying to reason that there is only one first cause or one necessary cause, i.e. one God .
There are those who maintain that there is no sufficient reason to believe that there exists a self existent being.
COUNTER ARGUMENTS:
1. If there is a cause for everything then what caused the first cause (god).
2.If the first cause can be thought to be uncaused and a necessary being existing forever, then why not consider that the universe itself has always existed and shall always exist and go through a never ending cycle of expansion and contraction and then expansion (big bang) again and again!!!
If there is to be a deity that is the exception from the requirement that all existing things need a cause then the same exception can be made for the sum of all energy that exists, considering that it manifests in different forms.
What the counter argument does is to indicate that the premises of the cosmological argument do not necessarily lead to the conclusion that there is a being that is responsible for the creation of the universe.
3) Further, even if a person wanted to accept that there was such a being there is nothing at all in the cosmological argument to indicate that the being would have any of the properties of humans that are projected into the concept of the deity of any particular religion. The first mover or first cause is devoid of any other characteristic.
So the cosmological argument is neither a valid argument in requiring the truth of its conclusion nor is it a satisfactory argument to prove the existence of any being that would have awareness of the existence of the universe or any event within it.
When a person asks questions such as :
1 What is the cause of the the energy or the force or the agent behind the expansion and contraction of the energy?
These questions are considered as "loaded questions" because they loaded or contain assumptions about what exists or is true that have not yet been established. Why is it that the idea of a "force " or agent" is even in the question? Why operate with the assumption that there is such or needs to be such?
We do not know that there is a force "behind" the expansion and contraction. Energy might just expand and contract and there is no force at all other than those generated by the energy-gravitational force, electro magnetic, strong and weak forces.
In another form this is the "who made god?" question or the" who made the energy question?" question. Such an approach to the issue of an explanation for the existence of the universe assumes that there must be an agency. When the idea of an eternal and necessary agency is introduced it was done to provide a form for describing a being that some people wanted as the ultimate explanation- a deity. The point of the counter arguments to the cosmological argument is that the idea of an eternal and necessary agency can as logically be expressed as energy rather than as a single being or entity. If the uncaused cause can be thought of a a single entity then the uncaused cause can be thought of a a single process-energy.
I would have voted for oromagi if it looked like he was losing.
This is an excellent scientific paper on the subject.
Science and Evolution
Claudia A.M. Russo 1 and Thiago André 2
Abstract
Evolution is both a fact and a theory. Evolution is widely observable in laboratory and natural populations as they change over time. The fact that we need annual flu vaccines is one example of observable evolution. At the same time, evolutionary theory explains more than observations, as the succession on the fossil record. Hence, evolution is also the scientific theory that embodies biology, including all organisms and their characteristics. In this paper, we emphasize why evolution is the most important theory in biology. Evolution explains every biological detail, similar to how history explains many aspects of a current political situation. Only evolution explains the patterns observed in the fossil record. Examples include the succession in the fossil record; we cannot find the easily fossilized mammals before 300 million years ago; after the extinction of the dinosaurs, the fossil record indicates that mammals and birds radiated throughout the planet. Additionally, the fact that we are able to construct fairly consistent phylogenetic trees using distinct genetic markers in the genome is only explained by evolutionary theory. Finally, we show that the processes that drive evolution, both on short and long time scales, are observable facts.
You can't believe in math. You have to understand it.
You can't understand religion. You have to believe in it.
We have Gods for the same reason we have Kings. They are all concepts from Worm Man.
In Con's arguments, he states "Con: The definition of atheism entails a belief in the non-existence of anygods. " I will be using the "anygods" in my ranking of his
Better spelling and grammar.
Which was worse, the BLM protests/riots or the assassination of John F Kennedy?
Wasn't Jesus LGBT? The NIV translation of Matt 5:22 reads “anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the court”. The original Greek text does not include “sister”, and the word “raca” is most likely a transliteration of the Aramaic word “rakkah”, which is the feminine form of the adjective that means “to be tender, weak, or soft”, so this would be comparable to calling a man a “sissy” (or worse).
Lord Ganesha is also knonw as Ganapati, Vighnaharta, Vinayak and elephant head god in India, Is the most worshipped deities in the Hinduism and is the supreme deity. Ganapati is a popular figure in Indian art and worshipped on all religious occasions, especially at the beginning of all ventures.
I ask PGA2.0 why he thinks Lord Ganesha does not exist?
I well be using the following as I prepare my vote.
How should one use the words disbelief and non-belief especially when it relates to the belief in god?
I tend to think of a disbeliever as someone who actively rejects a belief, often campaigning against it, while a non-believer is someone whose lack of belief is more passive, often as a result of never having been presented with the belief as an option. For me someone who was brought up as a Christian or Muslim but turned atheist would be a disbeliever while a member of a remote tribe who had never met a missionary would be a non-believer.
The definition of an Atheist should be someone who knows that no proof of any God exists.
How many vote bombs can you have before you are banned from the site?
From the FBI Website: Election Crimes and Security
Fair elections are the foundation of our democracy, and the FBI is committed to protecting the rights of all Americans to vote.
The U.S. government only works when legal votes are counted and when campaigns follow the law. When the legitimacy of elections is corrupted, our democracy is threatened.
While individual states run elections, the FBI plays an important role in protecting federal interests and preventing violations of your constitutional rights.
How can we explain the beginning of theism? Well,recognizing the evolutionary roots of much of human behavior, it seems that a psychological susceptibility to belief in God is the result of adaptive design. That hypothesis would only make sense if indeed there were behaviors associated with such susceptibility that made us genetically successful. Just as canine teeth evolved to help people rip the flesh off bones, could a belief in God have evolved to help people tear off bits of meaning from an otherwise meaningless existence? Or perhaps God is simply a spandrel—an architectural term (for an ornamental arch) adopted by Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Lewontin to indicate a biological feature that is passed down part and parcel with another trait and is not on its own a product of natural selection. God might be an accidental by-product of human cognitive evolution, a functionless leftover of the capacity to reason about other human minds in the everyday social world, as cognitive scientists such as Pascal Boyer of Washington University in St. Louis believe.
I don't know why Instigator didn't list the topic as; Only Christianity is True.
From American Atheists: Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods. Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system. To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.
Well, we will see what the new research at the Large Hadron Collider shows. LHC experts will work around the clock to progressively recommission the machine and safely ramp up the energy and intensity of the beams before delivering collisions to the experiments at a record energy of 13.6 trillion electronvolts (13.6 TeV).
This third run of the LHC, called Run 3, will see the machine’s experiments collecting data from collisions not only at a record energy but also in unparalleled numbers. The ATLAS and CMS experiments can each expect to receive more collisions during this physics run than in the two previous physics runs combined, while LHCb, which underwent a complete revamp during the shutdown, can hope to see its collision count increase by a factor of three. Meanwhile, ALICE, a specialised detector for studying heavy-ion collisions, can expect a fifty times increase in the total number of recorded ion collisions, thanks to the recent completion of a major upgrade.
The unprecedented number of collisions will allow international teams of physicists at CERN and across the world to study the Higgs boson in great detail and put the Standard Model of particle physics and its various extensions to the most stringent tests yet.