I’m not claiming that the Big Bang is theistic. I’m stating that there is no explanation for the creation or momentum of the two masses that collided, and proposing that it could have been accomplished by a divine creator just the same as ten-dimensional physicists believe that time was non-existent. If you don’t think scientists hold beliefs, you haven’t read enough about string theory. Religion is a belief, not a fact. Some may believe more whole-heartedly than others, but that doesn’t change the fundament.

Again, this was a post asking religious people why they are religious. There was no solicitation of god to atheists, yet many atheists took up arms to discredit the religious using the “burden of proof” argument. That argument only applies if someone is trying to convince another of an idea. A belief, by definition, is holding an idea without proof.

I absolutely respect rebuttals if they try to convince you of god’s existence. If not, it’s absolutely arrogant to tell them they’re wrong to believe in the existence of something that science is also only hypothesizing.

The event that I initially commented on way higher in this post was on the topic of creation. The Big Bang is widely accepted as the beginning of the universe. We have strong evidence of expansion from the universal center toward proposed systemic entropy.

There are currently only theories as to how the Big Bang began without violating the laws of physics, some involving non-existence of time. Other than speculation, we have no explanation as to where the masses came from or what set them in motion. Since there is no evidence, there is no reason why religion can’t hypothesize the same as science. Interference-based creation is just as possible as string theory.

You may not be saying that god doesn’t exist, but the thread you called “painful to read” is a debate with a commenter who is stating exactly that. https://lemmy.world/comment/10760354

I was simply standing up for the scientific support of agnosticism against a gnostic atheist who was repeatedly critical of those believing in god, on a post asking religious people why they’re religious. As a scientific person, I felt he was representing science poorly.

Internationally. The entire nation can be wealthy in relation to other nations, but not necessarily equally.

Since the term “rich” is subjective, I assume the question is in relation to other nations.

If it’s a capitalist nation, I don’t think it would last long. Low incentive to work, coupled with strong international purchasing power, would allow those who spend to drive down their net worth while those who invest increase it. It wouldn’t take more than a few years to begin a notable separation of classes.

You’re assuming that everyone would be equally rich.

Repealing the ACA without replacement would result in the immediate loss of healthcare for 45 million Americans. That’s a wildly irresponsible proposal.

Biden tried applying the same pressure by repealing Title 42 without restricting immigration for almost two years, expecting Congress to do their job and pass immigration reform. They failed, and now he has to return to restricting entry due to lack of state housing and federal budget.

Republicans don’t care about people as much as they care about winning.

I didn’t see the packaging listed on the website outside of a recent recall. As of September 19, 2023, the wrappers are made of plastic. I wouldn’t suggest inhaling fumes from its combustion.

https://news.kraftheinzcompany.com/press-releases-details/2023/Kraft-Heinz-issues-voluntary-recall-of-select-Kraft-Singles-American-Processed-Cheese-Slices/default.aspx

Astrophysics is based on observation of non-controlled events, coupled with existing understanding of physical laws and mathematics. Since there are very few controlled experiments in astrophysics, most of it is comprised of untested theories supported by the aforementioned evidence.

I’m just pointing out the difference between theory and applied scientific method on repeatable phenomena. I’m doing so to challenge the assertion from Atheists who state that science has proof of said events. They’re not proven, they’re theoretical.

I believe that insisting to others that there’s no god without proof is just as arrogant as insisting there is. Some may believe science governs the laws we see in existence, others may believe it’s god.

Einstein believed in the possibility of a divine creator that did not concern itself with the fate of mankind, but was responsible for the perfection found in the connection of all things, also known as “Spinoza’s god,” after Baruch Spinoza. There is certainly room for science and religion to coexist, and therefore no need for condemnation of either.

Not after that Hoffstadtler presentation mishap, no.

You’re fun. I hope you and your girlfriend have a great weekend!

It is grammatically correct, just semantically ambiguous. Buffalo is a proper noun, a noun, and a verb.

A semantically equivalent form preserving the original word order is: “Buffalonian bison that other Buffalonian bison bully also bully Buffalonian bison.”

That’s a melted Kraft Single. At least they removed the plastic first.

Edit: Yes, they’re wrapped in plastic. Please don’t burn it.

https://news.kraftheinzcompany.com/press-releases-details/2023/Kraft-Heinz-issues-voluntary-recall-of-select-Kraft-Singles-American-Processed-Cheese-Slices/default.aspx

Have you been talking to my therapist? Lol

Look for commercial televisions for hospitality or signage. They have the added benefit of handling long uptime with low failure rates and multiple inputs.

https://www.jp-uk.co.uk/commercial-tvs.html

https://www.rocheav.co.uk/shop/commercial-televisions

No worries! I didn’t take it as such. I meant the comment itself was mocking me. I knew better.

Coup Klux Klan

Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo.

“Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo” is a grammatically correct sentence in English that is often presented as an example of how homonyms and homophones can be used to create complicated linguistic constructs through lexical ambiguity. It has been discussed in literature in various forms since 1967, when it appeared in Dmitri Borgmann’s Beyond Language: Adventures in Word and Thought.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_buffalo_Buffalo_buffalo_buffalo_buffalo_Buffalo_buffalo

Reminds me of work from my favorite Disney artist, Eyvind Earle.

https://eyvindearle.com/the-work/

It could be simple download requests, rather than MAC or IP address downloads.

I remember hearing the opposite a long time ago. Thanks for the correction!

It’s a shitty rip off from a musical standpoint. I’m glad he has to pay.