While I don't doubt that you can find people with extreme views such as abolishment of religion, that's not what atheists in general demand. The demand is to keep the beliefs inside the believers and out of the society.
Were we not discussing Krauss that has just such a view? Randomly poll atheists and see how many agree with him, and don't see their belief as hypocritical.
You've yet to show that Krauss holds that view. Abolishment through education (as higher education correlates with less belief in sky-fairies) seems to be what he advocates.
And yet you can't give an example of your 50/50 claim. Not that it matters, philosophy is pretty worthless in evaluating claims of existence.
It becomes rather pointless to establish a different ratio when we know we can never prove either side is correct. It's a true or false question. How does any rational person set the odds any other way?
So, you couldn't find anyone giving those odds? Winning in lottery is a true/false question, how can anyone set those odds as anything different than 50/50? This is something that you seemingly fail to grasp.
The second half of that is absolute rubbish! Every scientific theory starts with a Philosophical evaluation! Every single one! Why do you think most scientists have PHDs? You do know what PHD is an acronym for don't you?
As a PhD, I'll have to inform that you are wrong. Every scientific theory begins with experimental data. This is why, say, the ancient Greeks theorizing about atoms didn't produce anything usable.
I've often wondered, how many of those people would have believed in a god, had they not been indoctrinated during their childhood (I don't claim that all of them were). I have hard time believing that anyone would come up with the Christian God and dogma (virgin birth and such) just starting from first principles and working in vacuum.
You are showing a great amount of ignorance of history here. Read up on Sumeria and Ancient Greek beliefs. It's not difficult to come up with any modern religion based on previous beliefs.
That's part of my point. The religious dogma seems like fairy-tales built on older fairy-tales. I did say "in vacuum", i. e. working without knowledge of the current and past religions.
Much of what is in the Judea Christian old testament seems to have some truth to the shape of the world also. If some does, perhaps you have been fooled into thinking there is no truth in anything except for what you have been taught to believe?
Much of the Old Testament is factually wrong or pretty hideous stuff morally. I don't know about truth, but science has been the only tool to give us something usable.
Einstein did believe in a creator, but was not a practicing Jew and did not believe what most Religions did or taught about the creator. You do realize that all of his writings are on the Smithsonian web site and translated to English, so you could easily check facts for yourself right?
So show me wrong with actual quotes.
How can you possibly agree with a disproportional set of conflicting information?
What conflicting information? We have talked about inaccuracy in measurements of parameters, like the age of the universe.
I'm not trying to claim the theories are bad, but pointing out the fact that there are numerous theories of the same name and none of them are the same. To claim BB is right means you have never read on what BB is.
I haven't claimed that BB theory is right, as no theory is ever right. They can only shown to be wrong; until that happens, the prevailing theories are our best models to match the universe we observe. Did you read the Scienceblogs page I linked to? Where were the numerous BB theories presented there?
You must also answer "who's BB" theory is right, who's numbers for dark matter and energy are correct, etc.. etc...
You still don't get it: Parameters are part of a theory. Using different parameter sets within a theory doesn't make different theories.
Also remember that if the expanding vacuum theory is correct, BB never happens.
What "expanding vacuum theory"? It's just your misinterpretation, as far as I can tell.
The Universe slowly expanded from a small point of space.
Yes, that's the starting point of BB theory.
In addition to making BB defunct, it ages the Universe immensely.
How does it do that, when it's part of the BB theory?
You still seem to believe that there is only 1 theory of Big Bang after being shown that there are differences between who you ask about BB theory!
Show the differences, then. All you have shown so far are different parameters used in the BB theory.
If you are not using the Earth and Moon's mass, you are not modelling the Earth and Moon are you?
To what accuracy do we know those masses? Does using different values within the known inaccuracy produce different Newtonian gravity theories?
And if I said that magic dragons pull the moon through the sky (which is the equivalent of Dark Matter and Dark Energy) I'm not modelling anything real am I?
Again you show your ignorance. Dark energy and dark matter are placeholders for causes of things that we observe, but don't have a proper theory for. For example, the Bullet Cluster gives pretty much direct observation of the dark matter, but we still don't know what the dark matter is, exactly. We only know some things that it isn't. The difference to your magical things is the dragons aren't needed to explain the moon's orbit.
Again, if Expanding Vacuum is right then all big bang theories are wrong!
Again, you are only talking about something that you have invented, not the actual BB theory.
If a massive explosion happened to cause the Universe's expansion, then at some point it must contract.
But the BB theory doesn't claim a massive explosion. That's only an analogy. And I don't see how an explosion would lead to contraction; I've never observed the gasses released when firing a gun contract back into the barrel or case. It's all a straw man you are building here. And if you are talking about running time backwards so that expansion turns into contraction, didn't you just above say that your imaginary expanding vacuum theory starts from a small point?
Oh, so you explain all the discrepancies away by dismissing other people's work for them. Sorry, that does not work.
It'd be helpful if you showed those discrepancies instead of your own misunderstandings.
Descartes stated "I think therefor I am" which discounts the possibility that you are a computer program. Yes, we can dismiss the theory in a very simple fashion.
Is this the level of sophistication that 30 years of philosophizing has given you? What if you are only programmed to think that?
You claimed to know some of Krauss's work, I guess that was not true? Go read Krauss's books, bigotry aside the science is rather good.
The problem is that nothing in Krauss's work resembles your expanding vacuum, as opposed to the BB theory.
I spelled that out very clearly, and in fact you comment in what I stated.
It is clear that you can't answer this question.
Philosophy is an elective in College, it's not required.
So is physics, at least when talking about modern level (say, the level of 1900s like quantum mechanics). So?