"Can you show me the passage in the atheists doctrine that directs atheists to kill people?"
you're answering my question with a question? do atheist kill people or not?
You responded to BDBDBD with a false equivalence. I responded to you with a return to BDBDBD's statement to you by addressing a true equivalence.
"the fact you suggest the laws of Newtonian physics and the laws of quantum mechanics may need to be rewritten and not just expanded on tells me that you are not well versed on the subject."
I don't think you know what a strawman fallacy is. I didn't rebut something you never said. I'm saying you lack subject matter knowledge which means your position on the subject is based on a faulty premise which is leading you to a faulty conclusion.
i said that singularities are not currently accommodated in our physics laws
i then said that two possibilities are t(1)hat singularities may not exist and (2)that we may have to change our current laws of physics (furthermore i didn't say that these are the only possibilities )
Again, we do not need to change our laws of physics, only add to them. This again shows you are not well versed with the modern model of physics.
the idea you are pushing that there is only one path with regards to this problem - that singularities exist and we simply have to add to our laws of physics to include them is actually the silliest idea i've heard so far... let me reiterate this so you get it... we do not know yet if they even exist in a practical sense, got it yet?
Actually, I'm not arguing either way with you. I've not said anything regarding singularities.
" You are arguing from ignorance and incredulity. "
only because you are attacking a strawman though ( and even the strawman you attacked is a possibility since it is possible that our physics laws are not perfect, this stance as someone graciously pointed out previously is anti-science )
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
By the way, do you not know how to multi-quote a single person?
"You responded to BDBDBD with a false equivalence."
can you describe logically what i'm equating?
"I don't think you know what a strawman fallacy is. I didn't rebut something you never said. I'm saying you lack subject matter knowledge which means your position on the subject is based on a faulty premise which is leading you to a faulty conclusion."
i've quoted experts in the area to back what i've posted
you didn't rebut anything i said, can you for one quote a physicists who says that the laws of physics are perfect as they are and will never be modified as we learn more?
secondly i called your post a strawman because you are claiming that i'm saying that we have to change our laws of physics to accommodate singularities, when i'm actually saying that its a possibility and its also a possibility that they do not even exist
"Again, we do not need to change our laws of physics, only add to them. This again shows you are not well versed with the modern model of physics."
so... you think our physics laws are perfect right now and we'll never have to rethink anything we think we know right now... well that's amusing i guess
this is the same as that other guy telling me that no aspect of evolution can be debated... you guys have a funny understanding of science for sure