What's the point of proving or disproving the existence of God?

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Einstein's God was a straight metaphor for the physical forces of the universe and his awe at their majesty.

Pantheism, if anything. But even that's a stretch.

A letter of Einstein's surfaced recently in which he attacked religious faith and so on...can't find it though.

Originally posted by lord xyz
1. No evidence to support this
2. Doesn't follow logic
3. Gravity

1. So?
2. What, weight isn't a force now?
3. See above.

Yes, but believing in God is still retarded.

I don't get what your point is, smart people can believe in God, therefore the god theory is intelligent? Or it's wrong for me to say believing in God is retarded because Einstein believed in God? If einstein believed in God, he's retarded in that field, and I don't expect anyone to take him seriously in that field either.

hmmm

Originally posted by lord xyz
No.

gravity affects all objects at a constant strength, meaning the weight of an object is not related to how quickly it falls under gravitational force.

iirc, it is something's aerodynamics that determine its speed of fall due to gravity

apples and bowling balls fall to earth at the same speed

Originally posted by inimalist
gravity affects all objects at a constant strength, meaning the weight of an object is not related to how quickly it falls under gravitational force.

iirc, it is something's aerodynamics that determine its speed of fall due to gravity

apples and bowling balls fall to earth at the same speed

There is that, but...due to more weight, the speed increases slightly -- it wouldn't be noticeable in aclassroom though, more off of a cliff.

I don't know the basics of it, but I'm sure that's what happens.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Well, not necessarily.

There is that, but...due to more weight, the speed increases slightly -- it wouldn't be noticeable in aclassroom though, more off of a cliff.

I don't know the basics of it, but I'm sure that's what happens.

if gravity affects all items at the same force, how could that work?

Originally posted by lord xyz
Well, not necessarily.

There is that, but...due to more weight, the speed increases slightly -- it wouldn't be noticeable in aclassroom though, more off of a cliff.

I don't know the basics of it, but I'm sure that's what happens.

Originally posted by inimalist
if gravity affects all items at the same force, how could that work?

Originally posted by Bardock42
No. It actually doesn't. In a vacuum anyways.

Originally posted by lord xyz
I was probably lied to then.

physics isn't my strong suit, so no idea, I was pretty sure about that one though...

Originally posted by inimalist
physics isn't my strong suit, so no idea, I was pretty sure about that one though...

But I think another thing, more important to xyz's blind faith in gravity, is the fact that many if not most scientists don't see gravity as a force at all, which kinda puts a damper on that fact theory. And, really, how would it look different if it was billions of invisible angels dragging stuff down (down being an idiotic term cause we are fixated on Earth like the little stupid lemmings we are)

http://www.endex.com/gf/buildings/ltpisa/ltpnews/physnews1.htm

Originally posted by inimalist
physics isn't my strong suit, so no idea, I was pretty sure about that one though...

I understand that gravity doesn't change, so everything accelerates at the same rate, but something about the weight would make it accelerate faster, or give it a higher terminal velocity.

I'm not sure though.

Originally posted by Bardock42
It's quite famous. With Galileo throwing down shit from the magnificent display of lack of architectual knowledge in Pisa.

But I think another thing, more important to xyz's blind faith in gravity, is the fact that many if not most scientists don't see gravity as a force at all, which kinda puts a damper on that fact theory. And, really, how would it look different if it was billions of invisible angels dragging stuff down (down being an idiotic term cause we are fixated on Earth like the little stupid lemmings we are)

http://www.endex.com/gf/buildings/ltpisa/ltpnews/physnews1.htm

The problem with angels is that there is no way to know if it's angels or anything else. Having this supernatural force (weight) is the only thing feasible. As we know forces exist.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Well, if you remember I never proposed gravity to be true...nor did I call it a force...technically weight is the force.

The problem with angels is that there is no way to know if it's angels or anything else. Having this supernatural force (weight) is the only thing feasible. As we know forces exist.

...wow...

Just wow.

isn't weight the measure of gravity's effect on mass?

and thanks for the link Mr. Bardock 🙂

Originally posted by lord xyz
2. What, weight isn't a force now?

No, it's a measure of mass under the effects of acceleration. Pressure is a force, however.

Gravity isn't either. It's a compression of the fabric of space that objects and energy follow.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Yes, but believing in God is still retarded.

1. I never said it wasn't.
2. You're no less retarded for not believing in God.

Originally posted by lord xyz
I don't get what your point is, smart people can believe in God, therefore the god theory is intelligent? Or it's wrong for me to say believing in God is retarded because Einstein believed in God? If einstein believed in God, he's retarded in that field, and I don't expect anyone to take him seriously in that field either.

I never made anything remotely approaching that claim. You are the one who made the claim that believing in God is something only stupid people do. I refuted that claim with multiple examples. Belief in God and intelligence have nothing to do with one another.

Pressure not actually a force. Except for that all quite true.

Originally posted by lord xyz
I was probably lied to then.

😆 😆 😆 😆 😆

OH DEAR GOD!

That was just sooo brilliant, wow. I am stunned.

Bardock mentioned your "blind faith" in gravity but I'm saddened he didn't go on to explore your blind faith in what your teachers (or whoever it was who told you that thing which you purpoted to be fact).

I mean really, it would be OK if you were a religious person or whatever who admitted his faith was blind, but the fact that you denied having faith before hand......oh dear!

Originally posted by lord xyz
Well, if you remember I never proposed gravity to be true...nor did I call it a force...technically weight is the force.

The problem with angels is that there is no way to know if it's angels or anything else. Having this supernatural force (weight) is the only thing feasible. As we know forces exist.

Do you honestly not see how that is the biggest contradiction you have made yet?

It can't be angels because we can't know if they exist, therefore it must be a supernatural force involving weight which we don't know exists....

😐

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
It's used as one more often than not. I'm sure you don't see the obvious comparisons to how many militant atheists treat Christianity but that's okay because I'm willing to hope that most people do.

Militant atheists are almost as bad as the fundamentalists. They may be right, but it doesn't make them less stupid for their horribly overt tactics, which likely do as much harm as good.

It's like screaming at your kid to do homework. Decent goal, awful execution.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You're avoiding/missing the entire point. Galileo, Descartes, Newton and Planck all happened to believe in God despite their brilliance. Being religious does not an idiot make.

No argument. I agree completely. Aside from possibly xyz, I don't see that argument being made here.

I also dislike the nigh-constant implication that atheism is synonymous with militant @sshole-ism. I know plenty of atheists. None are militant d*cks. Yet I realize that mine is just a case study among a larger whole. But so are the negatively-tinged ones. Now, given that the pricks will always garner far more attention than the rational, behaved atheists, which side do you think can claim more? I don't know for sure, but I'd venture to say that filtering the majority into some preconceived stereotype is both needlessly negative and likely false. Just as fundamentalist Christians are in the minority, but receive disproportional amounts of attention via criticism. The same is true in reverse.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
No argument. I agree completely. Aside from possibly xyz, I don't see that argument being made here.

You have to remember Digi, other than you he is the only one who is throwing his hat into the atheist corner here...and he makes more noise, so gets more attention.

(Hell there might be really quiet people around who none of us have noticed!)

Bardock is too, iirc. He's a d*ck too, but self-admittedly so ( 😉 ), and not directly about religion. More in general.

😛

Also, see my edit above for commentary on your point, which points out the disproportionate opinion caused by some receiving more attention than others.

And by your own admission, I'm 1/2 of the atheists here. If we use xyz as the norm (false by any standard of evidence-gathering, btw) it would be equally as valid to use me as the "norm." Though just as false, from a statistical perspective. None of our experiences, unless backed by research, amounts to much more than a meaningless case study, not a trend.

I did a thread years ago that actually suggests atheists are more "moral" than religious groups. Though it wasn't a logical argument, but a statistical one from extensive studies (plural) which corroborated the hypothesis. Not proof, certainly, but enough to cast considerable doubt on the rampant needless negativity toward atheism.

Don't be too sharp in your criticism, as they say "a house divided upon itself cannot stand".

Then again, I can tell you don't want to live with these "militant-@ssholes" as you term them.

Your last point depends on the definition of moral, which are right which are wrong, absolute or relative etc etc. Though you could say more atheists follow what they consider to be moral I guess...(if thats your hypothesis)

Doesn't trying to prove that there is a god negate someone's act of faith thereby making them pretty much an agnostic?