omnithought

So, the media keeps calling the Higgs boson "The God Particle" and a lot of religious people are claiming this is evidence that god exists. Let me clear up something.

It's called the "God Particle" for two reasons:

1) It's euphemistically called that because of it's elusive nature. It is joked that "Like God, it is everywhere but hard to find."

2) Nobel physicist Leon Lederman was trying to explain it in an article called "The Goddamn Particle." It was describing the frustration scientists had due to the data showing that this particle very likely existed, but they couldn't find it. The publisher changed the title to "The God particle" because they were afraid that "Goddamn" would be offensive.

There you have it.

Same goes for the argument "It's Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve." Since Adam and Eve weren't married, how is this argument relevant?

We have surviving writing from all kinds of people from his time, but none from him. Was he illiterate?

I've been checking the song lists online before buying Rock Band 3 and some of the best ones have an asterisk next to them which indicates that they are available for the Nintendo DS. Does this mean they're excluded from the XBox 360 version?

A lot of people are very opposed to the leaks released by Wikileaks. We know gov't corruption exists and we shouldn't just put up with it, so, if leaking the evidence is a bad idea, how else should it be dealt with? What would be truly effective?

...then how is it socialist? Since everyone must now BUY insurance, doesn't that increase capitalism instead?

To be clear, this isn't a question of whether the bill is good or bad for us, so save your rants. The question is how can it be socialist if it furthers capitalism?

There's no shortage of death, cruelty and horror as it is, so how would you tell the difference?

Seeking to do the least harm possible at all times or having blind obedience in a god that could ask you to do very horrible things?

Do you really think that anything is permissible if your god asks it of you?

I would think that any person with a brain would start to question anyone who tells them to kill their own child. The real test should have been god being disappointed in Abraham for being willing to kill his child for any reason. Should have been more like:

"Prove your faith, kill your son!"

"No!"

"There's hope for you yet."

Of course you can't. So, wouldn't it be smart to stop asking people to prove that your god doesn't exist?

do you think a belief in god is necessary in order to be kind, helpful and honest?. Why couldn't someone just be good to others anyway? Myself and many other atheists are helpful, kind, honest people. Yet, we have no belief in god. How is that possible?

if he came down to Earth and appeared before all people and said "I've decided that everyone gets forgiveness no matter what. Everyone can now go to Heaven!" Would you be less moral?

There, now you can have your god and answer the question. If you're about to use a cop out like "God wouldn't do that", who are you to say? He can do what he wants, right? So, would you be less moral if the above scenario happened? If so, why?

If so, are you truly moral?

People make the argument that we can't see air but we believe it exists, so why shouldn't we believe in god? Air, technically oxygen, has a measurable molecular mass. We can physically feel it, breathe it, measure it, and it takes up physical space.

So, what kind of molecules is god made up of? If we can't measure him and he takes up no mass and has no molecular structure, how can you equate him with air?

Can we put this stupid argument to bed now?

Because, if god can just make anyone pregnant, what's the point?