Atheists Don't Have A Moral Code?

Website:
http://www.tinyurl.com/65psa2j
(http://www.gphhawkinsrationalistsociety.weebly.com/)

My Facebook Page:
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Gphhawkins/246909378669578

Podcast:
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/gphhawkins

Tweet with me:
http://www.twitter.com/gphhawkins

Blogtv:
http://www.blogtv.com/people/gph_hawkins

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• Atheist
• Atheism
• CultOfDusty
• Atheist (band)
• Darwin
• Debate
• Richard
• Dawkins
• Moral
• Morality
• Creationism
• Design
• Charles Darwin
• Intelligent
• You
• Truth
• Logic
• Proof
• Response
• Theory
• Reason
• Kent
• Belief
• Evidence
• Earth

[1tabligh]

@TheIceThorn a source for all beings, not only by means of the heart and the conscience, but also through deduction and logic.

Your Pseudo-Scientific Demagoguery does NOT at all help cure your delusions!

[1tabligh]

@TheIceThorn when all of this is the case, it is surprising that some people turn their backs on scientific principles, primary deductions and propositions based on reflection, and deny the existence of the Creator.

Now, too, in the age of science and technology, when man has found his way into space, a considerable number of scientists have a religious outlook as part of the intellectual system; they have come to believe in the existence of a creator,

[1tabligh]

@TheIceThorn When the experimental sciences demonstrate that the elements and natural facrtors cannot exert any independent influence and do not possess any creativity; when all of our experiences, our sensory feelings, and our rational deductions point to the conclusion that nothing occurs in nature without a reason and cause and that all phenomena are based on an established system and specific laws,

[TheIceThorn]

@1tabligh "then this is *exactly* the method of demonstrating the *theological* position."

You've no MATERIAL proof of god existance -.- Proofs that are in "your soul" or "inside me" (your ass?) are SUBJECTIVE and not valid. A proof must be valid in EVERY POSSIBLE CASE. if it isn't, it's not a proof.

said that, good bye son of a slave (muslim means submitted to god, translated: slave of god) that take as example a pedophyle, exterminator, thief guy that flies on horses with woman head

[TheIceThorn]

@1tabligh Sadly for you gravity is not a "CENTRAL" force cause if half of the earth mass was on a point of the earth crust that was the point around the earth was orbiting now.

Gravity law is TOTALYL DIFFERENT from what you've said. Gravity law says that things that have a mass 'curve' the space around them attractign other object that pass near it.

[TheIceThorn]

@1tabligh "Nope!

When Newton, for example, put forth the law of general gravity in light of experimentation, he had *not* perceived this gravity force by any of his five senses."

re: ARE YOU IDIOT OR WHAT?

Gravity let the apple fall on his head. Sense of TOUCH. That's called INDIRECT PERCEPTION. As I said not everything that science knows it's something that can be seen, black holes exists and we can't 'feel' them; we only watch what are their effects on the space you dumbass -.-

[1tabligh]

@TheIceThorn by means of which the forces and secrets of the universe are discovered scientifically - namely, the study of a fixed perceptible phenomenon by experimentation and the rational inference of another thing from that phenomenon as the only explanation of the existence of that phenomenon - then this is *exactly* the method of demonstrating the *theological* position.

[1tabligh]

@TheIceThorn could not occur had there not been a gravity force. The reason is that the principle of essential deficiency requires chat a body move in a straight direction unless another manner [of movement] is imposed on it from an external force. From this, Newton obtained the law of gravity that asserts that the planets are subject to a central force, which is gravity. If these experimentalists who advocate and glorify experimentation intend the same method

[1tabligh]

@TheIceThorn Nope!

When Newton, for example, put forth the law of general gravity in light of experimentation, he had *not* perceived this gravity force by any of his five senses.

Instead, he discovered it by way of another perceptible phenomenon for which he found no explanation except by supposing the gravity force. He noticed that the planets do not move in a straight line. Rather, they have a circular motion. According to Newton, this phenomenon