Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
Algebe,
1. You don't know how it got started. So far so good.
2. You are not going to build a roadblock. Excellent. I hope you didn't think anyone was asking you to build a roadblock.
3. so now that there is no roadblock, you have a clear path to understanding. So give me some hints at what path you are thinking of, if anything.
don't you think it is about time atheism completes what it started? That is what Krauss seems to be working on and it is commendable. Instead of just hiding behind, "I don't know", what is stopping your from working on it? Since there are no roadblocks for you, what is the next step to understanding and knowing?
Disbelief in God implies the only thing that exists is nature. That means there must be a natural explanation for everything. So did the universe always exist? Did it have a beginning? What is the evidence? Where does the evidence point?
@ Apollo
"Disbelief in God implies the only thing that exists is nature. That means there must be a natural explanation for everything. So did the universe always exist? Did it have a beginning? What is the evidence? Where does the evidence point?"
The evidence points to the basic fact we have not figured it out. But by science being so open and honest, it is not committing the god of the gaps fallacy by implying a god did it.
What is the constant theist obsession with Laurence Krauss?
Is it because he is a theoretical cosmologist, an atheist or a Canadian?
He is not a high priest of science, nor the Pope of Atheism.
If I found out he disliked dogs, I would think of him as another jerk in the world.
I read Dawkins for biology. He sucks at theology.
I read Hawkings for cosmology, but I agree with some of his philosophical thoughts.
I read John Gribbin for the detailed histories and findings of science.
I have no idea what Gribbin's religous beliefs were. He never mentioned them afaik.
I read Sean B. Carroll for evolutionary biology. I know next to nothing else about him other than he is a biologist.
Jen Gupta
Andrew Pontzen
Harry Cliff
Jim Baggot
David Tong
Chris Impey
Lucie Green
Tara Shears
Dan Hooper
I don't know the personal details of the people listed list above but they are all scientists, have written books and presented Royal Institute You Tube lectures about cosmology, physics and chemistry and as far as I know their work complements Professor Krauss's concept of "nothing".
Then there's Dr Don Lincoln who presents the Fermilab series of youtubes on physics including quantum mechanics.
Again I have no idea if he is Canadian or a stamp collector.
You might particularly like his latest offering (01/04/2020) What happened before the Big Bang.
Quite apart from being an atheist I have confidence in what all the people above (and many others) have taught about the reality of the universe and how it works. The sustained consistency in their individual findings provides confidence for my acceptance of those findings.
That confidence is not something that suddenly came to me as a belief or revelation. Its based on a solid interlaced edifice of information built on the findings of the scientific method and has it beginnings for me some sixty years ago when I first began to recognise the persistent and constant behaviour in organisms, objects and events around me in the natural world. This initial recognition was later supported by those scientists who taught me throughout high school and those science writers whose outputs I have been reading ever since.
My confidence is not based on faith, but accumulated and verified knowledge the components of which have been repeatedly reaffirmed through critical experimentation, rigid examination and correction on discovery of improved data.
Theists imagine, feel, assume, acquire faith and believe they know. Science can deliver reasoned evidence backed with the results of experimentation and the proof of mathematics.
And no where does Science declare the non-existence of a god. Individual scientists might make that claim, based on their personal perceptions of the work with which they are involved. Some are theists, some are atheists, some decline a label. Like anyone else they have the right and freedom to have opinions and their own beliefs. Science however is neither opinion nor belief.
Theism on the other hand, without evidence, without proofs is no more than opinion, however dearly and earnestly held by the individual or group, and while I agree with others on this site, that theism satisfies important human pyschological needs, it can never override the established facts of science.
I go now to watch your offered videos.....added later.....Oh what a pity there's no transcript... I am a deaf atheist *sigh*...ok...sorry cant comment on that vid...but that saves me 2+ hours to do something else probably more constructive...
Grinseed,
1. Theist obsession with Krauss? I heard about Krauss from an atheist I met at a party. Very nice fellow. I asked him if he had any references for the origin of the universe according to an atheist perspective. He emailed me the link to youtube. do you have a reference to back your claim theists are obsessed with him?
2. your underlying assumption in your post is that the universe is autonomous and independent. "Assumption" has an uncanny resemblance to faith.
3. To quote you, "And no where does Science declare the non-existence of a god." I agree. Truer words are rarely spoken.
3. to quote you, "Science however is neither opinion nor belief." hmmm. Popper, Polanyi, Kuhn and others might have examples that contradict your faith in this matter. There is a thread that asks folks here what separates belief from fact.
https://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/what-separates-belief...
I was presented with the "fact" that of Coke and Pepsi, one had more calories. My response demonstrated that the claim that one had more calories than the other was a belief. You are invited to reply to the post and prove me wrong.
4. You have an impressive reading list, but it lacks any epistemology as far as I can see. that might explain why you have the faith that science is neither opinion nor belief. If you actually studied epistemology you might find that in order to know something you first must believe it, secondarily, it must be true. Separating reliable beliefs from unreliable ones is the task of the would be knower. Do you have any examples of things you know that you also disbelieve? If you don't, how could knowledge and belief be in separate compartments? Scientists have beliefs. Some of their beliefs are justified and firmly ratified. Others are not so certain.
Did you ever hear the claim that science changes, but religion doesn't. Why would science change? Because the previous beliefs of science were deemed to be wrong, so science changed. But if science was neither opinion or belief as you assume, how could science be wrong? And so why would it change? As you might imagine, I find your claim that science is neither belief or opinion to be a bit naive.
5. Some versions of theism conflicts with science. My version of theism doesn't . There is nothing in science that contradicts my perspective. So you can rant all you want about versions of theism that conflict with science, cause I'd probably agree. I must hedge my bets here, however, because, as previously noted when science thinks it is wrong, it changes. So any agreement I have concerning science now is always subject to revision later, yes?
@Apollo
1.It must be that we move in different circles. "A Universe From Nothing" is eight years old and through all that time Krauss has been criticised over his definition of "nothing" and his speculations of what might have happened before Planck time. It seems his 'popular' book did not satisfy some fellow physicists's taste for "peer reviewed" literature and his speculations about what might have happened before Planck time were condemned out of hand.
Fundamentalist theists buoyed by those physicists' complaints, relentlessly hit on the definition of 'nothing' because its the only concept they think they understand in the book and of course because he is an atheist and anything he might say about science is an attack on their god and faith.
It may just be an unfortunate coincidence that you used Krauss in your OP. I just thought "here we go again", and I presented other scientists who support the idea that before Planck time, physics as we understand it could not have existed and that anything on the topic should be understood as nothing more than speculation.
Google "Krauss criticism".
2.That the universe is autonomous and independent is what I confidently understand on the basis of that continuous edifice of evidenced knowledge that I mentioned produced by the scientific method.
If I had come to that same conclusion as a result of some sort of personal epiphany or revelatory experience it would then qualify as a belief.
3a. Good.
3b. "Science however is neither opinion nor belief." mmm not a good quote is it? Not so much naive as poorly expressed.
Perhaps I should have written the "Findings resulting from the scientific method are, ideally, not opinion or belief." That wont satisfy you either but I made the original comment as a comparison to the religious experience in the paragraph that immediately followed, "Theism on the other hand, without evidence, or proofs, is no more than opinion, however dearly and earnestly held by the individual or group, and while I agree with others on this site, that theism satisfies important human psychological needs, it can never override the established facts of science."
That last line about the "established"facts of science doesn't sound right either, given how science will adapt to newer more precise information. However what is not often mentioned in general discussions about the physical sciences, that fat elephant in the room, is the divide between Classical (Newtonian) and Quantum physics. The basic laws of physics still apply in both, but the outcomes are less predictable and certainly not as intuitive for quantum as for the classical. How observers directly influence experimental outcomes, as in the double slit experiment, also confounds normal expectations and the concept of 'facts'. Simple classical "facts" like location, velocity, mass and direction lose the traditional specific measurable qualities at the atomic level. Quantum uncertainty must have seemed like a god send for the serious career philosopher of science, presenting as it did, a whole new universe of tantalising propositions and theories.
As for the Pepsi/Coca Cola thread I did not participate nor had time to read it back then. I had a quick scan today. I would expect that to determine which drink actually had the most calories would entail precise chemistry tests over a selection of cans or bottles of each brand and possibly an averaging out of the result. Just believing one drink to have more calories than the other would be noting less than a guess and an unnecessary requirement. Evidence is the means by which an expectation (belief is religiously loaded)can be shown to be a fact or not. I notice others joined in the discussion and things were reduced to 'word games'.
4. You are right I haven't studied epistemology, (i might start soon) but I don't follow your assessment about the process of knowing something. You have expressed it awkwardly and imprecisely and it sounds like philosophical theorising.
Why should knowledge and belief be in separate compartments?
I am a keen student of bible history and have accumulated a good deal of knowledge verified from a variety of independent sources about Judaism and Christianity, but I have no belief in either religion. Does that count?
I have no example of anything I know that I don't also believe, but there has been a process of information gathering and sorting required before I reached this happy outcome. I know of aliens from outer space but I don't believe in them. I reserve judgement about their existence until I gather more information, but this is only what intelligent people do.
The head of the human genome project is a practising Christian. He possesses confident knowledge of genetics gleaned from the scientific method and he believes in a god whose existence he can not prove. He could accommodate knowledge and faith at the same time. So what?
We both understand why science adapts to new information and how that is a good thing and the philosophical rumbles on the sidelines that fight over the sorts of questions science should examine without ever actually proving anything themselves is just a sideshow.
Theism changes. Religion does it all the time. The Jewish faith has undergone many profound alterations since Abraham first went west. Elohim/Baal/Asherah has transformed into Jesus/God/Holy Spirit. What eventually became Christianity had to be sorted out from a vast array of mixed ideas beliefs and superstitions which still hasn't been resolved and the proliferation of thousand of sects proves how volatile and unguided that change has been. Slavery, polygamy, fish on Fridays, the ban on unclean foods, I personally know several gay pastors, purgatory is gone, the Pope says atheists who follow their conscience and do good will get to heaven, Mother Mary's immaculate conception was only declared in 1854 and I know Christians who don't believe in the afterlife. Religion and basic tenets of theism change as frequently as scientific facts with shifts in belief rather than with acquisition of new knowledge. Its a natural inevitable occurrence for any sort of knowledge. As my grandma used to say "Perfection is a form of stagnation."
I did this in college and it is actually quite easy and doesn't require much in the way of special equipment; you can do it in your kitchen.
You remove the water (evaporate or boil it off), then use the remaining material as a fuel to heat a measured volume of water. It takes 1 calories to raise 1 ml of water, 1 degree centigrade. You know how much water you have (use a measuring cup), and the change in temperature (using a thermometer), so you can calculate how many calories were in the fuel.
@Nyar, thanks for that lesson. Your explanation was much easier to follow than "q equals MC delta T RC". I marvel at how many people and years it took to settle on that equation.
We are assuming the black sludge left after removing the water from Coke is flammable? It probably would be if this incomplete recipe found in a newspaper from 1938, attempting to copy the original Coke recipe, sans the cocaine, is any indication. The sludge would probably burn merrily.
Or we could just ask Coke and Pepsi for their ingredients. 8\
The "secret recipe"
Fluid extract of Coca 3 drams USP
Citric acid 3 oz
Caffeine 1oz
Sugar 30 (it is unclear from the markings what quantity is required)
Water 2.5 gal
Lime juice 2 pints 1 qrt
Vanilla 1oz
Caramel 1.5oz or more to colour
7X flavour (use 2oz of flavour to 5 gals syrup):
Alcohol 8oz
Orange oil 20 drops
Lemon oil 30 drops
Nutmeg oil 10 drops
Coriander 5 drops
Neroli 10 drops
Cinnamon 10 drops
Maybe we can use this if the eggnog runs out. 'Cog'a Coala anyone?
Grinseed,
You are a thinking growing atheist, in my experience, a rarity which stands in contrast to Fundamentalist Atheists.
A) you noticed that theism changes. In my (limited) experience with atheists most haven't the slightest idea that theism changes, yet they all declare themselves as experts on the subject.
B) Some atheist here noted in another thread that science doesn't prove anything. Science constructs theories to explain what is currently taken to be facts and theories can't be proven. I think he is correct. In that sense theories are believed. You use of the word "belief" is quite narrow, I suspect. Whereas my use of the word belief is broader. Scientists believe all sorts of things, and they say, "I believe...." frequently. There use of it is appropriate. If I have a sample of one Coke, and one Pepsi and they are analyzed to determine calorie content and say coke has more calories (within a margin of error). To then say generally, from the beginning of such sodas, coke has more calories than pepsi is a belief. Its a belief because one is employing inductive reasoning. All inductive reasoning requires belief. Supposing some scientists has a project of determining the chemical makeup of sand on the earth. Examining each grain of sand is impossible. All they can do is take samples and assume/believe the samples are representative of all sand. Their findings will be a belief due to inductive reasoning. I find "proof" in such situations to be elusive.
C) I suppose that in your mind you have proven that the universe is independent and autonomous. Generally you cite your readings and the scientific method. Theists tend to believe hta the universe was created by God and thereby assume the universe is contingent upon God. Atheists a priori reject that assumption, and so, a priori assume the universe is independent and autonomous. Another (atheist) poster noted we don't know how the universe came to be. So thinking that the universe is autonomous and independent is an assumption, as is the theist assumption. The atheist position and the theist position are both assumptions. I have no fear of scientific methods. My theism and the methods of science fit hand in glove. I believe God created the rational principles that govern the universe. All science does is investigate and determine what those rational principles are and how they work. It is, of course an assumption. Which assumption is more tenable is an issue. Atheists believe the independent and autonomous assumption is more tenable. Its a personal subjective choice. That the universe is independent and autonomous is opinion.
@Apollo Re: "...with atheists most haven't the slightest idea that theism changes, yet they all declare themselves as experts on the subject."
You really don't pay a damn bit of attention to anything anybody says, do you?... *heavy sigh*... Generalize much?
@ Apollo
Rather than adopting the tag of 'atheist', growing or otherwise, I'd rather think of myself as an inquisitive renegade humanist ape with misanthropic tendencies. I dislike the term 'atheist'. It is a hat tip to the idea that a supernatural deity is a 'thing' I don't accept exists. Its a subtle but important discrimination.
You underestimate a lot of people on AR. Can you explain what a fundamentalist atheist is?
Theism changes superficially, yes, but there are core elements fundamental to specific faiths, like the Christian belief in the resurrection of the dead that defies rationality and certainly for which no evidence has ever been presented.
My experience with fundamental theists shows few understand why science changes and why it is not a weakness, while none the less, emphatically declaring the infallibility of their unevidenced and static faith.
I'd add just one word to your sentence "Science constructs theories to explain what is currently taken to be facts and theories can't be proven to be "ultimately" true." Why? Because the gist of the scientific method accepts the implausiblity of knowing everything. As I wrote before, science doesnt claim to be the truth but only a method to Fundamental theists claim possession of special knowledge that overrides all others without objective evidence.
English has the distinction of having the largest vocabulary of all others from the Indo-European family. This comes from it appropriating so many foreign words from those other languages and because it has many more meanings for its own original words, which is an indication of its diverse early cultural origins.
I am cautious about the use of words in certain discussions. Semantics a bitch. My life circumstances have forced me to be very aware of the vagaries and weaknesses of English. English is the perfect language with which to write novels and poems. But that rich wealth of meaning only serves to confuse discussions that deserve more precision in the definition of terms.
My informal use and understanding of the meaning of such words is different to yours. My use of words like faith and belief aren't narrower as much as they are cautious.
When scientists refer to their 'belief' in scientific hypotheses and theories it comes with the tacit understanding that everything depends on evidence gleaned from experimentation and other available data. "Their findings will be a belief due to inductive reasoning" Yes but their belief is conditional. As far as I understand Popper's arguments for falsification is generally accepted by the scientific community, ie nothing can be a ultimately proven. The 'belief' of a scientist engaged in inductive reasoning is not the same as the belief a priest in his ineffable god. They are not based on the same premises.
Many scientists have freely admitted to relying on their intuition while formulating hypotheses to be subject to experiment to produce a working theory. They have of course not always been successful enterprises.
Max Planck, devout Christian, put it this way, "Again and again the imaginary plan on which one attempts to build up order breaks down and then we must try another. This imaginative vision and faith in the ultimate success are indispensable. The pure rationalist has no place here."
And for balance Einstein, who considered personal gods as childish,"There is no logical way to the discovery of these elemental laws. There is only the way of intuition, which is helped by a feeling for the order lying behind the appearance." Which is by way of saying the beliefs of scientists are convenient and disposable tools while the beliefs of theists are earnest commitments.
I don't think I have proven anything. My view of the universe and its beginnings is unashamably based on my assessment of reason and rationality. I have no problem of calling it an opinion, but of the two possibilities suggested here (which ignores other possible contingencies), based on my understanding of scientifically determined knowledge, as incomplete and impenetrable some of that knowledge might be, the existence and evolution of the universe by natural forces is, for me, far more acceptable than the theist claims for a spiritual creator deity who transcends time and space which is certainly only another opinion.
If you have found your answer in a 'hand in glove' merger of science and spirituality, that's great and I am glad for you. I have no problem with it. I have often suggested to fundamentalists that if their god were omnipotent he may have well created evolution by natural selection and even abiogenesis. Its never been warmly accepted. Admittedly there would be no way to falsifiy that possibility, and for that reason it would always be no more than a belief.
Grinseed, post 71
Wrote,
1.
" When scientists refer to their 'belief' in scientific hypotheses and theories it comes with the tacit understanding that everything depends on evidence gleaned from experimentation and other available data. "Their findings will be a belief due to inductive reasoning" Yes but their belief is conditional."
Of course their belief is conditional. Then, what does "objective" mean? Objectivity is supposed to eliminate belief. But it doesn't. Too, and atheist would never accept the idea that the universe itself was evidence of a creator similar to the idea that observing an automobile engine was evidence of a engine inventor/creator. One's personal beliefs, disbeliefs, lack of belief is a device that guides one to judge what is evidence and what is not evidence. So then what is evidence? as it is relative to the preconceptions of the believer/knower.
1.
" I don't think I have proven anything. My view of the universe and its beginnings is unashamably based on my assessment of reason and rationality"
You write that as if reason and rationality have no premises/assumptions/preconceptions....A student of logic and reason would know that to be false.
1.
"... existence and evolution of the universe by natural forces is, for me, far more acceptable than the theist claims for a spiritual creator deity who transcends time and space which is certainly only another opinion."
Of course it is more acceptable to you. 'The belief that nature is all that exists, and that everything has a natural explanation is a necessary implication of atheism, or its alternative expression, a lack of belief in God. And the atheist perspective won't change despite what science discovers and theorizes about. that's because science isn't about theism/atheism. Science changes based on current findings, but theism and atheism don't change. That's because they are both metaphysical, and beyond the horizon of science.
1.
" If you have found your answer in a 'hand in glove' merger of science and spirituality"
What do you mean by spirituality? probably not what I mean by spirituality. The way I mean it, it means literally, breath. Living things breath. You probably mean it in term of some Middle Ages philosophy in which "spirit" is assumed (falsely) to be some kind of immaterial life.
No it isn't, objectivity is supposed to eliminate bias. A belief can be objective if it is supported by sufficient objective evidence, that is axiomatic. I believe the world is not at the centre of the universe, and that the earth is not flat, these are two beliefs, but they are no subjective beliefs.
@ Apollo
"Theist obsession with Krauss? I heard about Krauss from an atheist I met at a party. Very nice fellow. I asked him if he had any references for the origin of the universe according to an atheist perspective. He emailed me the link to youtube. do you have a reference to back your claim theists are obsessed with him?"
You keep referencing Krauss.
Your honor, I rest my case.
@Apollo
Do you believe the earth is not flat? Is it just a belief the same as people who believe the earth is flat? Or does one belief hold more validity than the other, and if so why? You surely can't believe it's a 50/50 premise as to whether the earth is flat or not?
Though I'm no expert by any means, I find it hard to believe you've studied epistemology, or if you have you've not understood it. Scientific facts are supported by sufficient of objective evidence, believing them to be true doesn't mean they no more valid than all other beliefs.
I also asked you to list some beliefs you hold without any objective evidence, but that form o part of your religious beliefs, are there any? Only you've not offered any...
@Grinseed
I'm not obsessed with Krauss, I'm simply a scientific illiterate. I'm only slightly aware of two physicists ; Brian Cox from TV and Youtube and Lawrence Krauss from Youtube.
Oh, I DO know an astro physicist slightly . I run into him at social gatherings every few years. He usually loses me with his second or third sentence. I once asked him "what was there before the big bang?" His answer ; "There was no before" So obviously I understood that.
As a catholic l was taught that time and space were created by god. That 'before that' God simply was, with no beginning and no ending . Also pretty much understood that too. Really? Of course I fucking didn't. It's a fucking paradox. I can no more understand 'no time ands pace' as I can 'nothingness' . That's why I can get kind of my head around the notion of 'no particles within a given space'; it's finite.
I'm suitably impressed with the erudition contained within the last few posts.
Now, could some kind soul more learned than I, please tell me if I was correct in my last post. OR completely wrong OR in the same solar system. PLEASE keep it simple. Thanks a fair bit in advance.
.
@cranky47
Oh you're right; in that when a physicist speaks about nothing, they often mean the vacuum state. When a philosopher speaks about nothing, they typically mean something very different. In fact, the "philosopher's nothing" isn't even an allowable state in the current physics regime.
@ Cranky, you are doing fine with cosmology and quantum mechanics. Richard Feynman, renowned physicist, admitted, "The weird thing about quantum mechanics is that no one really understands it." but that's not really a problem, the only real problem is when people insist they understand quantum mechanics well enough to claim it is wrong somehow and that therefore 'god' done it.
I have the advantage of having personally known several physicists, well enough to get drunk with, and my son is a qualified particle physicist and yet for all that I don't understand it anymore than anyone else.
Re: OP
(Before reading any other replies...)
Ummmmm..... Okay, to be honest, here is what little I read..... "Blah-blah-blah Krauss said this.... Blah-blah-blah why did Krauss think this or that?.... Blah-blah-blah how did Krauss get something from nothing?... Blah-blah-blah Krauss can do this blah-blah-blah Krauss can't do that.... Blah-blah-blah I had to consult a six year old who was smarter than me for some basic information I could have easily researched myself.... Blah-blah-blah-blah..."
Since you seem to have such a big hard-on for whoever the fuck this Krauss character is, why don't you go track down Krauss and ask him (her?) these questions your-own-damn-self? Why should I give two shits what Krauss thinks, says, or does? I don't even know who this Krauss person is, and that individual certainly has ZERO to do with my being an atheist. And since I am not a professor in astrophysics, biology, or cosmology, the ONLY answer I can give to you in regards to the beginning of the universe and the origin of life on this planet is, "I..... DON'T..... KNOW." If you find that answer too complicated to understand, then please go consult your six year old little friend. I'm confident she can explain it to you in a way you can comprehend. (Although, honestly, I am a bit concerned that she will be at risk of losing IQ points by having to interact with you. Soooooo... hmmm.... Yeah, maybe it's best just to leave her out of this.)
So another dishonest drive by from Apollo, espousing the same god of the gaps polemic, and false dichotomy fallacies he's posted relentlessly before, and that have been debunked each and every time.
Hmmmmm...I am thinking of a word...it starts with the letter "D".
@Apollo: DRIVEL Utter and complete DRIVEL. Why in the hell you came back for another ass chewing is amazing. Some dysfunctional children of dysfunctional families seek out negative attention as it was the only attention available to them growing up. Perhaps all you need is a bit of positive.
You spelled your name real good and some of your sentences actually made sense. Here is a silver star. Now take this cup of eggnog and go to your room. You can play with your socks until bedtime. We know how much you like your sock puppets. Be a good boy now and run along....
@cognastic
You have something against eggnog brother?
@dOg: That hedonistic pointed tin hat, leaky snail trail of a wanna be Oz Character? No, nothing at all. :-)
@Cog Re: To Apollo - "Now take this cup of eggnog and go to your room."
Hey! That better not be from my special batch!
Tin: Sorry; Old man left me alone and so I got to snooping around. I saw those old purple sneakers in the closet and I just thought I would give them a try on. How was I to know that the secret ingredient to the eggnog recipe was toe jam, moldy socks and locker room sweat?
@Cog Re: "How was I to know that the secret ingredient to the eggnog recipe was toe jam, moldy socks and locker room sweat?"
...*mocking laughter*.... Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha! Well, for your information, Mr. Smarty-pants Super-snooper, THOSE aren't the secret ingredients at all. Hell, ANY true eggnog artisan knows those are just part of the basic base ingredients.... *waving hand in dismissal*... And I'm not the least bit concerned about you or anybody else ever discovering my personal secret ingredient, because it is safely locked away up here... *pointing to head*... And, honestly, who do you know that would be willing to navigate the corridors of MY brain in an attempt to find it?... *raising eyebrow*...
Yah, Cog - why does he get eggnog?!?!?
Oh, I’ve always thought of myself and this “disbelief” (eye roll) as a positive ...
And is the record “skipping” - I’ve heard this before from the same poster.
When the boys got to a certain age I became a asantaist (a Santa ist) although, to be honest, I always was.
@Apollo - my question. What is your fascination with atheists, where you need to find some definition for “them”? And you do mix your definitions, btw, whether on purpose or by accident and it is annoying (you are misleading your own brain). Is it the “scientific method” that bothers you so much, or the fact that knowledge is not absolute?
Edited to add: all science is up for revision BASED on EVIDENCE - get this shocker - even scientific consensus
Edited to add add : @ Apollo “ Did you ever hear the claim that science changes, but religion doesn't. ”
Claim science changes (see above) - true; backed by evidences of “changes”
Claim religion doesn’t.... ball is in your court
@White
Sadly I've gone off eggnog. Coincidently happened the same time as I stopped drinking. At a pre christmas drinks evening the host made a non alcoholic eggnog for me; it was truly ghastly without the brandy.
Frigging bored. Watched recipes onYoutube for a bit. Seems people are turning into baking fools. All I'm thinking of baking is ANZAC biscuits (with oatmeal, corn syrup and coconut) and my favourite self saucing chocolate pudd.--Diabetic coma country unless I'm careful
Did some painting for about a hour. Started a new one. Then shaved off my beard. That was followed by ordering some clippers on Ebay so I can cut my own hair. If I stuff it up, I'll simply shave my head. I still have that beanie my ex knitted for me in 1990. (it's winter here) I really miss my yearly knitted whatever. The ex was a mad keen craft person; spinning, weaving and knitting her own wool ---made soap , paper as well as truck loads of macrame. Oh, she also had a herb garden with 2000 kinds of herbs. She could make stuffed chocolates and bake excellent biscuits . (cookies)---and that was the extent of her cooking ability and effort.
Think I'll go watch Star Trek Picard .
I sincerely hope you and everyone here is holding up ok, and staying safe. That includes our resident apologist nitwits. It's their beliefs I don't care about, not them as people.
@Cranky....
It’s “spring” here - foot and a half snow, it’s snowing right now and we’re at a balmy -12C (why couldn’t this have been a zombie virus?!?!)
Love Generations and Voyager (Janeway) ...didn’t care much for the Deep Space 9.
Glad you left off the booze. And here’s an inspirational haircut for when your clippers come!
Attachments
Attach Image/Video?:
@White
"It’s “spring” here - foot and a half snow, it’s snowing right now and we’re at a balmy -12C (why couldn’t this have been a zombie virus?!?!)'
Where are you? It doesn't snow in South Australia. Wait, when I was but a gossoon, I once saw a patch of snow about 6 feet in circumference in the Adelaide Hills . Have seen snow falling lightly once 1990, in the Italian Alps.
Booze? Yair, got sober in 2002. 18 years on June 30. Giving up smoking was harder; 13 jan 2003. Yes, AA I remain 'a sober member of AA' But I got me sober ,not sone vague higher power. I used AA and anything else I could find
.Interestingly I discovered there are a lot more atheists in AA than they care to admit. It is not discussed from the floor during meetings, but I think it should be. I stopped going to meetings 14 years ago, but can always go back if I need to..
PS I already look at lot like that cute kid, from above.. At mirror level I can't see the patent leatherish dome.
Pages