Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Religion

tama

(9,137 posts)

29. What I said

Reply to FarCenter (Reply #24)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 04:27 AM

Jan 2012

I had just read from Steven Weinberg's 'Towards final theory'. Just parroting.

Click here to purchase valentine hearts!

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

41 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Atheism: A Null Hypothesis on God [View all] Sal316 Jan 2012 OP

Rather startling ignorance on what a null hypothesis is dmallind Jan 2012 #1

As I recall rrneck Jan 2012 #2

Yep - just another sad ploy to pretend all atheists must be explicit atheists dmallind Jan 2012 #4

Again we seem to have limited the conversation to the concept of a personal God-- Thats my opinion Jan 2012 #6

Your link doesn't work for me. Jim__ Jan 2012 #7

Thanks, Thats my opinion Jan 2012 #14

The only way I limited that was in my assertion as false dmallind Jan 2012 #11

Tillich is just one link in a long chain Thats my opinion Jan 2012 #15

All to the good, but why is the Bible and not, say, Buddhist texts dmallind Jan 2012 #26

How was Bible compiled tama Jan 2012 #30

Well apart from the anarcho-syndicalist crap, fair questions - just irrelevant to mine. dmallind Jan 2012 #33

Trotsky and Stalin? tama Jan 2012 #34

Were you raised with the God you currently worship? ZombieHorde Jan 2012 #25

Apart from a few theologians kids, who is? nt dmallind Jan 2012 #27

The notion of God as a super human, in a cloud with beard, is very hard to gets rid of. Thats my opinion Feb 2012 #41

So what is the penalty? immoderate Jan 2012 #3

I sort of like this response, as a way of thinking about the topic. MarkCharles Jan 2012 #5

"manmade" tama Jan 2012 #8

I guess you missed the point. MarkCharles Jan 2012 #9

I don't disagree with the point tama Jan 2012 #18

I admire your attempt to compare earlier religious beliefs to ... MarkCharles Jan 2012 #20

Only if you deny succesfull evolutionary adaptation tama Jan 2012 #22

Consider one concept of God that Piatt gives us. Jim__ Jan 2012 #10

Very interesting. Thats my opinion Jan 2012 #16

Keep in mind that there are no "facts" in science FarCenter Jan 2012 #12

Well yes, but he's right in context here I believe dmallind Jan 2012 #13

"Why" is irrelevant FarCenter Jan 2012 #17

"Why" is irrelevant tama Jan 2012 #21

For a 3 dimensional Euclidean geometry, the exponent must be 2 exactly FarCenter Jan 2012 #24

What I said tama Jan 2012 #29

Why do objects have M to 2? dmallind Jan 2012 #28

The force between two masses is proportional to each of the masses FarCenter Jan 2012 #31

I know - but why is mass there? dmallind Jan 2012 #32

"Why" does not apply to mass FarCenter Jan 2012 #35

Not true dmallind Jan 2012 #36

If it is a question of existence, then the answer is --- Mass exists. FarCenter Jan 2012 #37

So does being certain of the non-existence skepticscott Jan 2012 #19

and unicorns are real. lindysalsagal Jan 2012 #23

Is there a china tea pot orbiting the sun or not? AlbertCat Jan 2012 #38

The china tea pot really does exist, its just located directly opposite of us in orbit of the sun. LAGC Jan 2012 #39

so is not believing in unicorns a null hypothesis on unicorns? La Lioness Priyanka Feb 2012 #40