Is Dark Matter Where the Seven Heavens Lie?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If Pullman lets you go either way on the issue of faith, then he's making you think. If the "correct" conclusion is spelled out for you, then it's, uhh, atheist proselytizing.

Atheists don't proselytize, they point out facts and debunk beliefs for which there is no evidence, or contrary evidence.

Whatever it is they do, they do it very aggressively. And constantly. But that's not proselytizing, is it?

like scientists explaining evolution? Doctors recommending regular exercise? Like accountants balancing the budget?

I don't think I have read more absurd comparisons. Medicine, accounting, health recommendations are not based to diverse belief systems. They are based on universally held beliefs, unlike religion. You win the prize, Einstein!

and atheism is not a religion, it's not believing in gods, and therefore isn't proselytized. People come to atheism by examining the evidence, just like they make scientific, medical and accounting decisions.

Wowza, you're bad at logic! You're not yourself making a very good case for atheists' supposed superior reasoning abilities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The absence of belief in a God will always be considered under the category of religion/dogmas, and not accounting or medicine.

Some atheists deny the existence of a deity because of their belief that evidence does not exist, not because evidence shows it does not exist.

Dark matter was unknown before. Its accepted by physicists today. That humans lacked evidence of its existence does not mean it did not exist before. I do not think the choice to be an atheist is always or necessarily arrived at by looking at evidence.

A theory of dark matter was formulated based on observable evidence. It's a rational belief.

"God" or "gods" are theories that are NOT based on evidence and the best evidence points away from their existence. It is an irrational belief.

Unless you find evidence that prophets came...

[Anonymous]

"I watched this short video but saw no clear proof that dark matter is where the seven heavens may be. However, I am intrigued"

Wait-- what? You saw no scientific proof of heaven's existence and its exact location? You don't say.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The absence of belief in a God will always be considered under the category of religion/dogmas, and not accounting or medicine.

Some atheists deny the existence of a deity because of their belief that evidence does not exist, not because evidence shows it does not exist.

Dark matter was unknown before. Its accepted by physicists today. That humans lacked evidence of its existence does not mean it did not exist before. I do not think the choice to be an atheist is always or necessarily arrived at by looking at evidence.

A theory of dark matter was formulated based on observable evidence. It's a rational belief.

"God" or "gods" are theories that are NOT based on evidence and the best evidence points away from their existence. It is an irrational belief.

Unless you find evidence that prophets came...

Unless all evidence points to "prophets" being basically influential local people in their time, who were born and then died, just like countless others throughout human history, all across the earth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If Pullman lets you go either way on the issue of faith, then he's making you think. If the "correct" conclusion is spelled out for you, then it's, uhh, atheist proselytizing.

Atheists don't proselytize, they point out facts and debunk beliefs for which there is no evidence, or contrary evidence.

Whatever it is they do, they do it very aggressively. And constantly. But that's not proselytizing, is it?

like scientists explaining evolution? Doctors recommending regular exercise? Like accountants balancing the budget?

I don't think I have read more absurd comparisons. Medicine, accounting, health recommendations are not based to diverse belief systems. They are based on universally held beliefs, unlike religion. You win the prize, Einstein!

and atheism is not a religion, it's not believing in gods, and therefore isn't proselytized. People come to atheism by examining the evidence, just like they make scientific, medical and accounting decisions.

Wowza, you're bad at logic! You're not yourself making a very good case for atheists' supposed superior reasoning abilities.

Wowza - let's hear something convincing for believing in the supernatural -- believing in stuff for which there is no evidence and threatening people who don't believe with eternal damnation, despite the lack of evidence. Relying totally on faith and disregarding the lack of evidence to maintain your beliefs. Presenting faith in events or ideas for which there is no evidence as superior to an evidence-based acceptance of reality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If Pullman lets you go either way on the issue of faith, then he's making you think. If the "correct" conclusion is spelled out for you, then it's, uhh, atheist proselytizing.

Atheists don't proselytize, they point out facts and debunk beliefs for which there is no evidence, or contrary evidence.

Whatever it is they do, they do it very aggressively. And constantly. But that's not proselytizing, is it?

like scientists explaining evolution? Doctors recommending regular exercise? Like accountants balancing the budget?

I don't think I have read more absurd comparisons. Medicine, accounting, health recommendations are not based to diverse belief systems. They are based on universally held beliefs, unlike religion. You win the prize, Einstein!

and atheism is not a religion, it's not believing in gods, and therefore isn't proselytized. People come to atheism by examining the evidence, just like they make scientific, medical and accounting decisions.

Wowza, you're bad at logic! You're not yourself making a very good case for atheists' supposed superior reasoning abilities.

Wowza - let's hear something convincing for believing in the supernatural -- believing in stuff for which there is no evidence and threatening people who don't believe with eternal damnation, despite the lack of evidence. Relying totally on faith and disregarding the lack of evidence to maintain your beliefs. Presenting faith in events or ideas for which there is no evidence as superior to an evidence-based acceptance of reality.

Holy subject switch, Batman

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If Pullman lets you go either way on the issue of faith, then he's making you think. If the "correct" conclusion is spelled out for you, then it's, uhh, atheist proselytizing.

Atheists don't proselytize, they point out facts and debunk beliefs for which there is no evidence, or contrary evidence.

Whatever it is they do, they do it very aggressively. And constantly. But that's not proselytizing, is it?

like scientists explaining evolution? Doctors recommending regular exercise? Like accountants balancing the budget?

I don't think I have read more absurd comparisons. Medicine, accounting, health recommendations are not based to diverse belief systems. They are based on universally held beliefs, unlike religion. You win the prize, Einstein!

and atheism is not a religion, it's not believing in gods, and therefore isn't proselytized. People come to atheism by examining the evidence, just like they make scientific, medical and accounting decisions.

Wowza, you're bad at logic! You're not yourself making a very good case for atheists' supposed superior reasoning abilities.

Wowza - let's hear something convincing for believing in the supernatural -- believing in stuff for which there is no evidence and threatening people who don't believe with eternal damnation, despite the lack of evidence. Relying totally on faith and disregarding the lack of evidence to maintain your beliefs. Presenting faith in events or ideas for which there is no evidence as superior to an evidence-based acceptance of reality.

Holy subject switch, Batman

holy no-comeback-for-that-eh?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The absence of belief in a God will always be considered under the category of religion/dogmas, and not accounting or medicine.

Some atheists deny the existence of a deity because of their belief that evidence does not exist, not because evidence shows it does not exist.

Dark matter was unknown before. Its accepted by physicists today. That humans lacked evidence of its existence does not mean it did not exist before. I do not think the choice to be an atheist is always or necessarily arrived at by looking at evidence.

A theory of dark matter was formulated based on observable evidence. It's a rational belief.

"God" or "gods" are theories that are NOT based on evidence and the best evidence points away from their existence. It is an irrational belief.

I hate to move away from the subject of dark matter and seven heavens, but I want to answer this. You are not understanding my logic. My point is that dark matter always existed, but it was only proven to exist based on observable evidence recently. Before evidence was observable, does it mean it did not exist? Of course not. It always existed. Now we simply have evidence to show it always existed. Similarly, there is enough scientific proof of God and an after life if you want to know it and are willing to accept it. If you don't want to accept it, it's your prerogative of course and no one is committing you to eternal damnation. But I don't think every atheist comes to his choice by saying evidence shows God doesn't exist. I think most atheists come to their choice by way of saying the evidence isn't apparent to them. It's a subtle but very critical difference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If Pullman lets you go either way on the issue of faith, then he's making you think. If the "correct" conclusion is spelled out for you, then it's, uhh, atheist proselytizing.

Atheists don't proselytize, they point out facts and debunk beliefs for which there is no evidence, or contrary evidence.

Whatever it is they do, they do it very aggressively. And constantly. But that's not proselytizing, is it?

like scientists explaining evolution? Doctors recommending regular exercise? Like accountants balancing the budget?

I don't think I have read more absurd comparisons. Medicine, accounting, health recommendations are not based to diverse belief systems. They are based on universally held beliefs, unlike religion. You win the prize, Einstein!

and atheism is not a religion, it's not believing in gods, and therefore isn't proselytized. People come to atheism by examining the evidence, just like they make scientific, medical and accounting decisions.

Wowza, you're bad at logic! You're not yourself making a very good case for atheists' supposed superior reasoning abilities.

Wowza - let's hear something convincing for believing in the supernatural -- believing in stuff for which there is no evidence and threatening people who don't believe with eternal damnation, despite the lack of evidence. Relying totally on faith and disregarding the lack of evidence to maintain your beliefs. Presenting faith in events or ideas for which there is no evidence as superior to an evidence-based acceptance of reality.

Holy subject switch, Batman

With religion, if one needs evidence to believe, then that kind of faith is on shaky ground. God expects faith regardless of observable evidence because this is the strongest kind of belief system one can have. If however, you need evidence to jumpstart your belief, it's there for the taking. Thousands of people have had near death experiences, both religious and nonreligious, atheists or even sinners. A German study of 944 volunteers proved there isn an after life. If you want to know, the information is out there. You can even google former atheists and near death experience to see them describe their fate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
"I watched this short video but saw no clear proof that dark matter is where the seven heavens may be. However, I am intrigued"

Wait-- what? You saw no scientific proof of heaven's existence and its exact location? You don't say.

well it's important to have that proof because then the next question is how souls arrive there? Wormholes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If Pullman lets you go either way on the issue of faith, then he's making you think. If the "correct" conclusion is spelled out for you, then it's, uhh, atheist proselytizing.

Atheists don't proselytize, they point out facts and debunk beliefs for which there is no evidence, or contrary evidence.

Whatever it is they do, they do it very aggressively. And constantly. But that's not proselytizing, is it?

like scientists explaining evolution? Doctors recommending regular exercise? Like accountants balancing the budget?

I don't think I have read more absurd comparisons. Medicine, accounting, health recommendations are not based to diverse belief systems. They are based on universally held beliefs, unlike religion. You win the prize, Einstein!

and atheism is not a religion, it's not believing in gods, and therefore isn't proselytized. People come to atheism by examining the evidence, just like they make scientific, medical and accounting decisions.

Wowza, you're bad at logic! You're not yourself making a very good case for atheists' supposed superior reasoning abilities.

Wowza - let's hear something convincing for believing in the supernatural -- believing in stuff for which there is no evidence and threatening people who don't believe with eternal damnation, despite the lack of evidence. Relying totally on faith and disregarding the lack of evidence to maintain your beliefs. Presenting faith in events or ideas for which there is no evidence as superior to an evidence-based acceptance of reality.

Holy subject switch, Batman

holy no-comeback-for-that-eh?

holy-no-comeback-needed-when-your-bad-vocabulary-(define-proselytizing)-speaks-for-itself

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If Pullman lets you go either way on the issue of faith, then he's making you think. If the "correct" conclusion is spelled out for you, then it's, uhh, atheist proselytizing.

Atheists don't proselytize, they point out facts and debunk beliefs for which there is no evidence, or contrary evidence.

Whatever it is they do, they do it very aggressively. And constantly. But that's not proselytizing, is it?

like scientists explaining evolution? Doctors recommending regular exercise? Like accountants balancing the budget?

I don't think I have read more absurd comparisons. Medicine, accounting, health recommendations are not based to diverse belief systems. They are based on universally held beliefs, unlike religion. You win the prize, Einstein!

and atheism is not a religion, it's not believing in gods, and therefore isn't proselytized. People come to atheism by examining the evidence, just like they make scientific, medical and accounting decisions.

Wowza, you're bad at logic! You're not yourself making a very good case for atheists' supposed superior reasoning abilities.

Wowza - let's hear something convincing for believing in the supernatural -- believing in stuff for which there is no evidence and threatening people who don't believe with eternal damnation, despite the lack of evidence. Relying totally on faith and disregarding the lack of evidence to maintain your beliefs. Presenting faith in events or ideas for which there is no evidence as superior to an evidence-based acceptance of reality.

Holy subject switch, Batman

With religion, if one needs evidence to believe, then that kind of faith is on shaky ground. God expects faith regardless of observable evidence because this is the strongest kind of belief system one can have. If however, you need evidence to jumpstart your belief, it's there for the taking. Thousands of people have had near death experiences, both religious and nonreligious, atheists or even sinners. A German study of 944 volunteers proved there isn an after life. If you want to know, the information is out there. You can even google former atheists and near death experience to see them describe their fate.

If an afterlife had been proven it would surely be on the front page of the New York Times.

[Anonymous]

PP, this one's for you..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3adbayvKWA

What if you are wrong? WHAT IF?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP, this one's for you..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3adbayvKWA

What if you are wrong? WHAT IF?

I watched that video and find it incredible that I'm expected to believe a guy who starts by telling us what an a-hole he was, and then goes on to tell us about a hospital experience that led him to Jesus. Surely a physician like he claims to be should know that people in hospitals being pumped full of medications often have drug-related mental reactions that can include delusional episodes.

I'm glad that belief in Jesus works better for him than drugs and alcohol, I never but worshipped either drugs of alcohol, so I have no need to substitute Jesus.

The answer to PP's "What if?" is that if there is such a thing as heaven, for all I know, the secret to getting in is never allowing myself to be talked into doing something in order to get in.

[Anonymous]

Well if you are right that there is no God & no Heaven, believers lose nothing. However, if we are right that there IS a God & Heaven, you'd be in big trouble.