[QUOTE=ewmayer;349211]Suppose I were to object to my money, period, being used to give free advertising space to judeochristian monotheism.[/QUOTE]

When you're right, you're right.

Suppose it said "in christ we trust" or even "in allah we trust".

Most everyone outside the designated religion would protest.

So why aren't atheists given the same support by removing
everything religious from anything government?

[QUOTE=davar55;349415]
So why aren't atheists given the same support by removing
everything religious from anything government?[/QUOTE]Always outvoted.

[QUOTE=cheesehead;349418]Always outvoted.[/QUOTE]

Well then it's time for another vote.

If the religious get to impose their views via government regarding contraception, abortion, gay rights, etc.; I want to withhold tax payments which go for immoral and illegal wars, not to mention never ending supplies of unneeded and dysfunctional weapons.

[QUOTE=gd_barnes;343940]I think that most "gods" are caused by the brain making crap up to explain things that science has not yet been able to explain. Over the years, more and more people have jumped off of the "gods" bandwagon as science has been able to explain almost everything beyond a shadow of doubt. We're now down to the origin of the universe and to a lesser extent how humans evolved as about the only things that science doesn't yet have a definitive proof for so religion is being backed into a tighter and tighter corner. I mean, think about it. The pattern is clear. People thought that almost everything was controlled by gods even just 500-1000 years ago.

What I believe will happen over the next few centuries or millinea is that science will ultimately come up with a definitive proof for how mankind evolved -and- how the universe came to be [B]or that it has always been here (I believe the latter; i.e. that there was no actual beginning).[/B]

Despite these proofs, there will still be a certain (hopefully) small percentage of people that will hold on to their "god" beliefs because they just cannot let them go. It will be too painful to be proven wrong. It will then be that people who profess a belief in a higher being will be ridiculed or persecuted in a manner similar to the way that people who do not believe now or did not believe in the past.[/QUOTE]

I [B]bolded[/B] one line above.

The religious creationism was meant to support the god idea.
Both ideas are unsupportable and will eventually be regarded
as just growing pains for humaity.

The Universe has always existed, it had no beginning.
This is a rational comological point of view. I agree with the post.

[QUOTE=davar55;349528]< snip >
Both ideas are unsupportable < snip >

The Universe has always existed, it had no beginning.[/quote]You're amusing when, right after calling two ides unsupportable, you set forth your own unsupportable idea without citing any support for it. :-)

[quote]This is a rational comological point of view.[/quote]... for which you cite no supporting evidence!

[QUOTE=cheesehead;349601]You're amusing when, right after calling two ides unsupportable, you set forth your own unsupportable idea without citing any support for it. :-)

... for which you cite no supporting evidence![/QUOTE]

I've been assuming you read cosmo3.txt, my monograph on cosmology.
There's supporting evidence there.

[QUOTE=davar55;349652]I've been assuming you read cosmo3.txt, my monograph on cosmology.
There's supporting evidence there.[/QUOTE]

"Read my paper" is a lazy cop out.

[QUOTE=davar55;349652]I've been assuming you read cosmo3.txt, my monograph on cosmology.
There's supporting evidence there.[/QUOTE]

First convince a decent number of practicing [in the sense of their having been published in well-regarded professional journals], then I'll read your pet monograph on [strike]cold fusion[strike] big-bang-less cosmology.

But for quickies, briefly describe how your model explains the key aspects of the CMB.

[QUOTE=davar55;349652]I've been assuming you read cosmo3.txt, my monograph on cosmology.
There's supporting evidence there.[/QUOTE]That's a fairly arrogant assumption there.

Why am I supposed to tediously search back through threads to find your link to cosmos3.txt?

You could have made "cosmo3.txt", in your post, a link ... but you didn't go to that minimal trouble to make it easy, did you?

(Oh -- when you do show us a link, are you also going to make us tediously plow through the monograph to try finding exactly what it is that you call "supporting evidence"? Or will you bother to tell us just where, in the monograph, that "supporting evidence" is? Is it clearly labelled as "supporting evidence" in the monograph?)

[URL="http://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=213645&postcount=180"]cosmo1.txt
[/URL]

[URL="http://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=269695&postcount=251"]revised to cosmo2.txt[/URL]


[URL="http://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=336305&postcount=353"]revised to cosmo3.txt[/URL]