Why do Atheists Hate Religion?

[ummina]

okey, this topic is very hurd.
cause i think may be, can be true or false. atheis can have freedom for him life.
they dont want to have bond with religi if they have, atheis i think doesnt mean not trust God, but just they is not want to have bond with the religion from anything.
there are life is free. i think just that. no want to waste the time to pray, and the other, but i thing everyone born with God SPot in theyself.
like soul, we can feel. and we can hear like angel and Demond in we head. like that. people dead, possessed, and etc.
how can make to explane if they not trust GOd. but once again, i thing just they no want to have bond with any religion.

[1714776510]

1714776510

[1714776510]

1714776510

[1714776510]

1714776510

[1714776510]

1714776510

[1714776510]

1714776510

[1714776510]

1714776510

[Beliathon]

okey, this topic is very hurd.

It's extremely easy.

Is there any evidence for an invisible Sky Father? No.
Is there any evidence for talking snakes? No.
Is there any evidence for winged sky humans? No.

Case fucking closed.

[BADecker]

okey, this topic is very hurd.

It's extremely easy.

Is there any evidence for an invisible Sky Father? No.

There is complexity in everything. We see this complexity, but we see no way for the complexity to exist. The complexity is so extremely great in mankind that we can produce marvels of thinking.

We see nothing but entropy in everything without seeing any way for the complexity to exist. The mind of man was more complex in the past because entropy is neutralizing it just like everything else.

We see nothing but cause and effect, action and reaction in everything. Everything that exists has been caused by something that existed before it.

The above doesn't necessarily prove God, but it is at least reasonable evidence that God exists. Why? Because entropy would have equalized universal complexity into simplicity long ago if something greater than complexity had not caused the universe to exist.

Since cause and effect is in everything we see, the complexity must have been started by something that is outside of cause and effect. Otherwise the cause and effect would have been neutralized by entropy long ago.

The definition of the word "God" fits whatever it is that created the complexity, thereby overcoming entropy, in cause-and-effect actions that are precise enough that they have lasted for thousands of years, not only in greatness of complexity (quality) and in the countless numbers of of actions (quantity), but also in depth, breadth and scope of the way the whole universe works.

Is there any evidence for talking snakes? No.

Research shows that animals attempt to talk, and can indeed talk in simple ways. The thing that keeps them from doing so in a way that we understand is the shapes of their mouths, and the strangeness of the talking process. Even on their own, animals talk in their simple languages.

Is there any evidence for winged sky humans? No.

If "angels" are meant by "winged sky humans," many people have expressed that they have had experience of such. The witnessing that they are doing in their expression of such is evidence of such.

Case fucking closed.

The case is your mind.

However, thank you for giving me the opportunity to point people in the direction of God a little, through your expression of your simplistic ignorance.

[Beliathon]

Just a gentle reminder that Christianity is being cut away from American society like a fucking cancer:





http://www.pewforum.org/2015/05/12/americas-changing-religious-landscape/

Christians Decline Sharply as Share of Population; Unaffiliated and Other Faiths Continue to Grow

The major new survey of more than 35,000 Americans by the Pew Research Center finds that the percentage of adults (ages 18 and older) who describe themselves as Christians has dropped by nearly eight percentage points in just seven years, from 78.4% in an equally massive Pew Research survey in 2007 to 70.6% in 2014. Over the same period, the percentage of Americans who are religiously unaffiliated – describing themselves as atheist, agnostic or “nothing in particular” – has jumped more than six points, from 16.1% to 22.8%.

[jaysabi]

Your getting up or staying in bed is dictated by things like the many neuron firings in your brain which cause you to make the decision the way you do. The neuron firings are determined to some extent by the electrolytes in your system. The electrolytes are determined by what you ate or drank the night before. The things you ate or drank were determined both by availability and by the electrolyte-neuron-induced-firing of the night before. The food composition of the food you ate and the drink you drank were determined by many factors in nature and manufacturing, all of which were determined by many other factors.

When you get a degree in neurosciences, then you can tell us how the brain works. Until then, perhaps lay off the junk science explanations.

What's the matter? Having trouble refuting the things I say with any factual science?

Don't get me wrong. It is totally acceptable that my programming recognizes the programming, while yours doesn't. It's the way we are programmed. However, the amazing thing is that we have a little bit to do with our own programming, even though science doesn't know it, or recognize that it could be this way... in fact, doesn't even really think we do.

No, your garbage description of how neurons work doesn't even meet the minimum threshold of credibility to warrant spending any time correcting. It's plainly obvious to anyone who isn't an idiot that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. The only refutation required is to draw attention to your post, and let people associate the uneducated nonsense within with its author.

This isn't the place to delve into the papers that explain how neurons work.

The point is that Newton's Third Law doesn't state exactly what the equal and opposite reaction is. But His Third Law implies, accurately, that for every reaction there is an equal and opposite action that caused it (it, the reaction, that is). This being the case, there are no random actions. Everything is preprogrammed, including the way that neurons fire.

Wake up and see that the idea of free will is beyond the explanation of science. Thus, science by its inadequacy for explaining free will, suggests that free will is an illusion. There is no free choice. There is only the illusion of free choice.

What? You don't believe in science? Eeeeaaaagh.

Here's perfect example of you taking something scientific and just making stuff up without having the slightest understanding of what you're talking about.

The point is that Newton's Third Law doesn't state exactly what the equal and opposite reaction is. But His Third Law implies, accurately, that for every reaction there is an equal and opposite action that caused it (it, the reaction, that is). This being the case, there are no random actions. Everything is preprogrammed, including the way that neurons fire.

Folks like you are so good at taking peoples' focus off the point. But people are learning.

First, yes Newton's Third Law does state exactly what the reaction is. See if you can keep up here: it is equal and opposite.

Now, look at this in a little more detail. The actions are made up of real activity - brain chemicals, electrons, etc., doing their job. The opposite reaction is therefore, not real. If it were real, it would not be an opposite reaction. The free will equal reaction is an illusion.

Newton's Third Law describes the interaction for force pairs,

Did you get your own words? "Forced pairs." In other words, action and reaction, cause and effect.

and the specific, exact reaction is stated as equal and opposite.

With regard to neurons firing and brain activity in general, there are countless, hundreds of thousands of actions and causes. Each one works with others to produce the outcome - the reactions, the effects - the illusion of free will. Why is it an illusion? Because it feels free, but is actually actions and reactions, causes and effects, producing the appearance of free will.

Second, his law doesn't prove that there are no random actions. Even if you want to argue semantics on this, the point can be conceded without consequence, because doing so certainly doesn't have any application to your conclusion: everything is pre-programmed. Everything certainly is not. If you want to argue it is, you'll need something that actually supports the conclusion. Newton's Third Law isn't it.

All you have said here is "No, no no." Newton's Third Law is about action and reaction, cause and effect. These are universal. There is no evidence of anything other than action and reaction, cause and effect. Random suggests effect without cause. But there is no evidence of such.

The Great First Cause is the One Who got the whole cause and effect thing going. Nobody has substantive evidence to the opposite... the opposite that suggests that there is anything random happening. All is cause and effect.

Third, Newton's Third Law has nothing to do with neurons firing.

Every action has to do with Newton's Third Law, because there is no action outside of the fact that there was something that caused it. This means that even the firing of neurons was caused by something or many somethings.

Fourth, you still do not understand how neurons work.

And neither do you. If you did, you would already know about how God interacts with cause and effect without being affected by either cause or effect.

The moral of the story here is please don't try to science without proper adult supervision. You're not mentally equipped for it.

The moral of the story is that I am not equipped to satisfactorily deal with jokers, like you, who think that they are using science, but then have no real answer or ability to make the answer plain to people.

See if the simple neurons firing in your brain can comprehend: Newton's Third Law describes the interaction of force pairs. Force-pairs; one thing, a closed system. Not "forced pairs." The law describes physical reactions in a closed system. As this applies to neurons, you might say that a neuron firing does so with a measurable force. If this is true, then that force has an equal and opposite reaction which would be the recoil from the firing. It does not apply to neurons in any other capacity. You are either shockingly stupid, or a master class troll, and I'm leaning towards the former.

Again, to recap, because you're really not getting a simple concept: Newton's Third Law does not mean that neurons firing are pre-programmed. The law describes physical action-reaction force pair systems. If you attempt to invoke the law to describe things to which it does not apply, you are an idiot.

For now, I'll be curating a list of things in which you think you are an expert, but of which you actually have no, or a deeply-flawed/incorrect, understanding. Your task should be to eliminate the things on this list, or stop talking about them like you know what they are.

Things you don't understand, even a little:

• Newtons Third Law
• How neurons work
• What Common Law is
• The difference between criminal and civil court jurisdiction

[jaysabi]

Lol, what the heck, dude.  One paragraph...

The opposite reaction is therefore, not real.

... vs. other paragraph

Newton's Third Law is about action and reaction, cause and effect.

You're not even trying anymore.  Go lay down or something.

electrons, electrolytes, chemicals, all working in the brain = reality = action

free will = illusion = reaction

For every ACTION there is an equal and opposite REACTION.

Reaction opposite action.
Illusion opposite reality.
Free will opposite brain activity.

Let's see if we can clear this up concisely.

For every ACTION, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Do you know what an ACTION is? Actions are verbs, not nouns. Here's a list to help you, since now I'm in a listing mood.

Things BADecker things are actions, but aren't:

• Electrons
• Electrolytes
• Chemicals
• Reality
• Illusion
• Free will

Therefore, because none of the things you are talking about are ACTIONS, Newton's Third Law cannot be invoked to prove they have an opposite.

Here I thought your problem was of science illiteracy, and it turns out, it's just regular illiteracy.

[BADecker]

Lol, what the heck, dude.  One paragraph...

The opposite reaction is therefore, not real.

... vs. other paragraph

Newton's Third Law is about action and reaction, cause and effect.

You're not even trying anymore.  Go lay down or something.

electrons, electrolytes, chemicals, all working in the brain = reality = action

free will = illusion = reaction

For every ACTION there is an equal and opposite REACTION.

Reaction opposite action.
Illusion opposite reality.
Free will opposite brain activity.

Let's see if we can clear this up concisely.

For every ACTION, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Do you know what an ACTION is? Actions are verbs, not nouns. Here's a list to help you, since now I'm in a listing mood.

Things BADecker things are actions, but aren't:

• Electrons
• Electrolytes
• Chemicals
• Reality
• Illusion
• Free will

Therefore, because none of the things you are talking about are ACTIONS, Newton's Third Law cannot be invoked to prove they have an opposite.

Here I thought your problem was of science illiteracy, and it turns out, it's just regular illiteracy.

Solomon says in the Bible O.T., that if you laugh at someone's trouble, the same thing will happen to you. I wouldn't have laughed, anyway. But Solomon gives me all the more reason not to laugh.

From http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/action?s=t:

action
[ak-shuh n]


noun
1. the process or state of acting or of being active:
The machine is not in action now.
2. something done or performed; act; deed.
3. an act that one consciously wills and that may be characterized by physical or mental activity:
a crisis that demands action instead of debate; hoping for constructive action by the landlord.
4. actions, habitual or usual acts; conduct:
He is responsible for his actions.
5. energetic activity:
a man of action.
6. an exertion of power or force:
the action of wind upon a ship's sails.
7. effect or influence:
the action of morphine.
8. Physiology. a change in organs, tissues, or cells leading to performance of a function, as in muscular contraction.
9. way or manner of moving:
the action of a machine or of a horse.
10. the mechanism by which something is operated, as that of a gun or a piano.
11. a military encounter or engagement; battle, skirmish, or the like.
12. actual engagement in fighting an enemy; military or naval combat:
He saw action in Vietnam.
13. Literature. the main subject or story, as distinguished from an incidental episode.
14. Theater.

    an event or series of events that form part of a dramatic plot:
    the action of a scene.
    one of the three unities.
    Compare unity (def .

15. the gestures or deportment of an actor or speaker.
16. Fine Arts. the appearance of animation, movement, or emotion given to figures by their attitude, position, or expression.
17. Law.

    a proceeding instituted by one party against another.
    the right of bringing it.

18. Slang.

    interesting or exciting activity, often of an illicit nature:
    He gave us some tips on where the action was.
    gambling or the excitement of gambling:
    The casino usually offers plenty of action.
    money bet in gambling, especially illegally.

19. Ecclesiastical.

    a religious ceremony, especially a Eucharistic service.
    the canon of the Mass.
    those parts of a service of worship in which the congregation participates.

adjective
20. characterized by brisk or dynamic action:
an action car; an action melodrama.
Idioms
21. in action,

    performing or taking part in a characteristic act:
    The school baseball team is in action tonight.
    working; functioning:
    His rescuing the child was bravery in action.

22. out of action, removed from action, as by sudden disability:
The star halfback is out of action with a bad knee.
23. piece of the action, Informal. a share of the proceeds or profits:
Cut me in for a piece of the action.
24. take action,

    to start doing something:
    As soon as we get his decision, we'll take action.
    to start a legal procedure.

I don't see "action" listed as a verb anywhere in the definition.

Since the word "action" is a noun, and it is being compared to "reaction," another noun, Newtons Third Law is talking about "things," which are not verbs.

[Muhammed Zakir]

Lol, what the heck, dude.  One paragraph...

The opposite reaction is therefore, not real.

... vs. other paragraph

Newton's Third Law is about action and reaction, cause and effect.

You're not even trying anymore.  Go lay down or something.

electrons, electrolytes, chemicals, all working in the brain = reality = action

free will = illusion = reaction

For every ACTION there is an equal and opposite REACTION.

Reaction opposite action.
Illusion opposite reality.
Free will opposite brain activity.

Let's see if we can clear this up concisely.

For every ACTION, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Do you know what an ACTION is? Actions are verbs, not nouns. Here's a list to help you, since now I'm in a listing mood.

Things BADecker things are actions, but aren't:

• Electrons
• Electrolytes
• Chemicals
• Reality
• Illusion
• Free will

Therefore, because none of the things you are talking about are ACTIONS, Newton's Third Law cannot be invoked to prove they have an opposite.

Here I thought your problem was of science illiteracy, and it turns out, it's just regular illiteracy.

Solomon says in the Bible O.T., that if you laugh at someone's trouble, the same thing will happen to you. I wouldn't have laughed, anyway. But Solomon gives me all the more reason not to laugh.

From http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/action?s=t:

-meanings-

I don't see "action" listed as a verb anywhere in the definition.

Since the word "action" is a noun, and it is being compared to "reaction," another noun, Newtons Third Law is talking about "things," which are not verbs.

I think jaysabi was not talking about the word 'action' and what he really meant was 'actionss' are verbs and not nouns. Eg:- breathe, run etc...

[BADecker]

Lol, what the heck, dude.  One paragraph...

The opposite reaction is therefore, not real.

... vs. other paragraph

Newton's Third Law is about action and reaction, cause and effect.

You're not even trying anymore.  Go lay down or something.

electrons, electrolytes, chemicals, all working in the brain = reality = action

free will = illusion = reaction

For every ACTION there is an equal and opposite REACTION.

Reaction opposite action.
Illusion opposite reality.
Free will opposite brain activity.

Let's see if we can clear this up concisely.

For every ACTION, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Do you know what an ACTION is? Actions are verbs, not nouns. Here's a list to help you, since now I'm in a listing mood.

Things BADecker things are actions, but aren't:

• Electrons
• Electrolytes
• Chemicals
• Reality
• Illusion
• Free will

Therefore, because none of the things you are talking about are ACTIONS, Newton's Third Law cannot be invoked to prove they have an opposite.

Here I thought your problem was of science illiteracy, and it turns out, it's just regular illiteracy.

Solomon says in the Bible O.T., that if you laugh at someone's trouble, the same thing will happen to you. I wouldn't have laughed, anyway. But Solomon gives me all the more reason not to laugh.

From http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/action?s=t:

-meanings-

I don't see "action" listed as a verb anywhere in the definition.

Since the word "action" is a noun, and it is being compared to "reaction," another noun, Newtons Third Law is talking about "things," which are not verbs.

I think jaysabi was not talking about the word 'action' and what he really meant was 'actionss' are verbs and not nouns. Eg:- breathe, run etc...

jaysabi was simply playing a word game.

The word "action" is a noun that describes certain verbs, which are the actions.

In Newton's Third Law, the activity in action is a verb. When the activity is being talked about, it is a noun. Newton simply uses the noun, "action," to indicate a verb that is doing some kind of activity. In other words, an activity being done is expressed as an action (noun) to include it in its entirety, and to include that whole classification of activity.

If the reaction was a verb as well, it would not be the opposite of the action, which in its acting is a verb described as an activity by the noun "action."

For example, if I say the simple sentence, "I build a house," this can be simplified to "build" a verb, and "house" a noun, an action and its reaction. Yet "build" a verb is indicated by the word "action" which is a noun. And the word "house" a noun is the opposite of the word "build" a verb, so that Newton is correct when he says that the reaction "house" is opposite of the action "build."

[Tusk]

Dogma is our friend, because it gives us a foundation on which to build. Dogma is our enemy when the substance of dogma is incorrect.

That is one way of approaching it, I prefer in the absence of self verified knowledge to keep an open mind. If you keep looking under the same rocks you keep finding the same bugs.

You have more or less asserted several times, now, that you are against dogma. At what point does the strength of your assertion start to bring it into a dogmatic position itself? To see what I mean, take a look at the synonyms and antonyms for the word "dogma" as found in the thesaurus, here http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/dogma.

Yes I am guilty as charged for acerting my bias against dogma to the point of being dogmatic For the simple reason your keep postulating a doctrine or a corpus of doctrines relating to matters such as morality and faith, set forth in an authoritative manner by religion.

To accept authority without question is embracing tyranny, to use subjective ideology to validate your existence is self limiting but to try and impose it on others is evil.   

[the joint]

okey, this topic is very hurd.

It's extremely easy.

Is there any evidence for an invisible Sky Father? No.
Is there any evidence for talking snakes? No.
Is there any evidence for winged sky humans? No.

Case fucking closed.

Dude, for the last time, it's already been proven this is a BS argument.  You seriously need to go back to a science textbook and read about what Empiricism is.  By definition, anything with a real-but-abstract component cannot be comprehensively explored by science. 

The point is simple -- if an Intelligent Designer exists, there is no physical evidence that could theoretical exist that would prove it.

"Case fucking closed."  You are correct there is no [empirical] evidence, but there never could be even if an I.D. exists.

You'd be wise to concede this point.

[Beliathon]

The point is simple -- if an Intelligent Designer exists, there is no physical evidence that could theoretical exist that would prove it.

The point is simple, all the evidence strongly suggests there is no intelligent designer that cares about humanity.

For example:

We eat, breathe, talk, and drink through the same hole in our bodies, guaranteeing that a percentage of us will choke to death every year. Why not have separate holes for each? DOLPHINS HAVE THIS BTW!

Human eyes are terrible at seeing in air, they're filled with fluid and much better suited to seeing in water, because that's the environment in which our eyes evolved.

Microbes are trying to hijack our bodies all the time, trying to parasitize, poison, digest, and consume our flesh.

Birth defects are common and tragic. For example, some children are born with no immune system, most of them suffer and die, consumed by a hostile takeover of bacteria and virii.

We can't live on 2/3rds of the Earth's surface. Half of the 1/3rd that remains is also inhospitable to life as we'll freeze or starve to death.

90% of all life that has ever existed on this planet is now extinct.

Our inner solar-system is a shooting gallery of asteroids and comets.

Mass extinctions are common throughout history, whether by disease, climate shift, killer asteroids.

Very nearly all the volume of space in the universe will kill life instantly, whether from heat, radiation, or cold.

Galactic orbits bring us close to supernovas which could easily wipe out Earth's ozone layer.

We're on a collision course with the Andromeda galaxy.

Our sun will eventually go Red Giant and wipe out all life in this solar system.

The universe is stretching at an every-accelerating pace as approach our inevitable oblivion as the temperature of the universe approaches absolute-zero asymptotically.

All this is nature killing us without the help of human hatred and ignorance.

Intelligent Design is Stupid: Neil deGrasse Tyson

[the joint]

The point is simple -- if an Intelligent Designer exists, there is no physical evidence that could theoretical exist that would prove it.

The point is simple, all the evidence strongly suggests there is no intelligent designer that cares about humanity.

For example:

Microbes are trying to hijack our bodies all the time, trying to parasitize, poison, digest, and consume our flesh. Some children are born with no immune system, most of them suffer and die.

We can't live on 2/3rds of the Earth's surface. Half of the 1/3rd that remains is also inhospitable to life as we'll freeze or starve to death.

90% of all life that has ever existed on this planet is now extinct.

Our inner solar-system is a shooting gallery of asteroids and comets.

Mass extinctions are common throughout history, whether by disease, climate shift, killer asteroids.

Very nearly all the volume of space in the universe will kill life instantly, whether from heat, radiation, or cold.

Galactic orbits bring us close to supernovas which will wipe out Earth's ozone layer.

We're on a collision course with the Andromeda galaxy.

Our sun will eventually go Red Giant and wipe out all life in this solar system.

The universe is stretching at an every-accelerating pace as approach our inevitable oblivion as the temperature of the universe approaches absolute-zero asymptotically.

All this is nature killing us without the help of human hatred and ignorance.

Irrelevant.  Read it again.  It is a sound conclusion that if an I.D. exists it would be a theoretical impossibility for there to be physical evidence of it.  It's no different than the sound conclusion that there is no physical evidence for the abstract laws of mathematics.  The laws of mathematics are not proven with evidence, but with abstract proof.  Your "but there's no evidence!" wailing is irrelevant. 

Provide a purely logical argument against an I.D. that doesn't rely upon physical evidence, or just submit your claims as unfounded opinion.

[the joint]

Lol, what the heck, dude.  One paragraph...

The opposite reaction is therefore, not real.

... vs. other paragraph

Newton's Third Law is about action and reaction, cause and effect.

You're not even trying anymore.  Go lay down or something.

electrons, electrolytes, chemicals, all working in the brain = reality = action

free will = illusion = reaction

For every ACTION there is an equal and opposite REACTION.

Reaction opposite action.
Illusion opposite reality.
Free will opposite brain activity.

Let's see if we can clear this up concisely.

For every ACTION, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Do you know what an ACTION is? Actions are verbs, not nouns. Here's a list to help you, since now I'm in a listing mood.

Things BADecker things are actions, but aren't:

• Electrons
• Electrolytes
• Chemicals
• Reality
• Illusion
• Free will

Therefore, because none of the things you are talking about are ACTIONS, Newton's Third Law cannot be invoked to prove they have an opposite.

Here I thought your problem was of science illiteracy, and it turns out, it's just regular illiteracy.

Solomon says in the Bible O.T., that if you laugh at someone's trouble, the same thing will happen to you. I wouldn't have laughed, anyway. But Solomon gives me all the more reason not to laugh.

From http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/action?s=t:

action
[ak-shuh n]


noun
1. the process or state of acting or of being active:
The machine is not in action now.
2. something done or performed; act; deed.
3. an act that one consciously wills and that may be characterized by physical or mental activity:
a crisis that demands action instead of debate; hoping for constructive action by the landlord.
4. actions, habitual or usual acts; conduct:
He is responsible for his actions.
5. energetic activity:
a man of action.
6. an exertion of power or force:
the action of wind upon a ship's sails.
7. effect or influence:
the action of morphine.
8. Physiology. a change in organs, tissues, or cells leading to performance of a function, as in muscular contraction.
9. way or manner of moving:
the action of a machine or of a horse.
10. the mechanism by which something is operated, as that of a gun or a piano.
11. a military encounter or engagement; battle, skirmish, or the like.
12. actual engagement in fighting an enemy; military or naval combat:
He saw action in Vietnam.
13. Literature. the main subject or story, as distinguished from an incidental episode.
14. Theater.

    an event or series of events that form part of a dramatic plot:
    the action of a scene.
    one of the three unities.
    Compare unity (def .

15. the gestures or deportment of an actor or speaker.
16. Fine Arts. the appearance of animation, movement, or emotion given to figures by their attitude, position, or expression.
17. Law.

    a proceeding instituted by one party against another.
    the right of bringing it.

18. Slang.

    interesting or exciting activity, often of an illicit nature:
    He gave us some tips on where the action was.
    gambling or the excitement of gambling:
    The casino usually offers plenty of action.
    money bet in gambling, especially illegally.

19. Ecclesiastical.

    a religious ceremony, especially a Eucharistic service.
    the canon of the Mass.
    those parts of a service of worship in which the congregation participates.

adjective
20. characterized by brisk or dynamic action:
an action car; an action melodrama.
Idioms
21. in action,

    performing or taking part in a characteristic act:
    The school baseball team is in action tonight.
    working; functioning:
    His rescuing the child was bravery in action.

22. out of action, removed from action, as by sudden disability:
The star halfback is out of action with a bad knee.
23. piece of the action, Informal. a share of the proceeds or profits:
Cut me in for a piece of the action.
24. take action,

    to start doing something:
    As soon as we get his decision, we'll take action.
    to start a legal procedure.

I don't see "action" listed as a verb anywhere in the definition.

Since the word "action" is a noun, and it is being compared to "reaction," another noun, Newtons Third Law is talking about "things," which are not verbs.

Holy crap, this is absurd.

Dude, the word "verb" is defined as a noun, too:

verb
vərb/
nounGRAMMAR
1.
a word used to describe an action, state, or occurrence, and forming the main part of the predicate of a sentence, such as hear, become, happen.

Listen more.  Talk less.  The word action is a noun, but actions are verbs.  Just like the word verb is a noun, but verbs are actions.

[Tusk]

The point is simple -- if an Intelligent Designer exists, there is no physical evidence that could theoretical exist that would prove it.

The point is simple, all the evidence strongly suggests there is no intelligent designer that cares about humanity.

For example:

We eat, breathe, talk, and drink through the same hole in our bodies, guaranteeing that a percentage of us will choke to death every year. Why not have separate holes for each? DOLPHINS HAVE THIS BTW!

Human eyes are terrible at seeing in air, they're filled with fluid and much better suited to seeing in water, because that's the environment in which our eyes evolved.

Microbes are trying to hijack our bodies all the time, trying to parasitize, poison, digest, and consume our flesh.

Birth defects are common and tragic. For example, some children are born with no immune system, most of them suffer and die, consumed by a hostile takeover of bacteria and virii.

We can't live on 2/3rds of the Earth's surface. Half of the 1/3rd that remains is also inhospitable to life as we'll freeze or starve to death.

90% of all life that has ever existed on this planet is now extinct.

Our inner solar-system is a shooting gallery of asteroids and comets.

Mass extinctions are common throughout history, whether by disease, climate shift, killer asteroids.

Very nearly all the volume of space in the universe will kill life instantly, whether from heat, radiation, or cold.

Galactic orbits bring us close to supernovas which could easily wipe out Earth's ozone layer.

We're on a collision course with the Andromeda galaxy.

Our sun will eventually go Red Giant and wipe out all life in this solar system.

The universe is stretching at an every-accelerating pace as approach our inevitable oblivion as the temperature of the universe approaches absolute-zero asymptotically.

All this is nature killing us without the help of human hatred and ignorance.

Intelligent Design is Stupid: Neil deGrasse Tyson

Intelligent design does not require emotion or benevolence to validate or refute it, and our understanding of the universe is so inadequate to be able to make predictions as to its origins or outcome, they are all best guess as were the beliefs of our theist forefathers.

[Beliathon]

The point is simple -- if an Intelligent Designer exists, there is no physical evidence that could theoretical exist that would prove it.

all the evidence strongly suggests (...)

Irrelevant.  

That right there is why science gave us computers, space rockets, and artificial limbs. While religion has given us church shootings, gay bashing, and flagellation.

[the joint]

The point is simple -- if an Intelligent Designer exists, there is no physical evidence that could theoretical exist that would prove it.

all the evidence strongly suggests (...)

Irrelevant.  

That right there is why science brings us computers, space rockets, and artificial limbs, while religion brings us church shootings, gay bashing, and flagellation.

And logic tells us what is possible (e.g. proof for real-but-non-physical constructs)  and impossible (e.g. physical evidence for real-but-non-physical constructs), and in some cases that which is logically necessary or unnecessary.

Again, your "but there's no evidence!" claims are totally and utterly inapplicable...provably.

[Tusk]

The point is simple -- if an Intelligent Designer exists, there is no physical evidence that could theoretical exist that would prove it.

all the evidence strongly suggests (...)

Irrelevant. 

That right there is why science brings us computers, space rockets, and artificial limbs, while religion brings us church shootings, gay bashing, and flagellation.

Science merely gives us an insight into the protocol of the operating system.

[Beliathon]

The point is simple -- if an Intelligent Designer exists, there is no physical evidence that could theoretical exist that would prove it.

all the evidence strongly suggests (...)

Irrelevant.  

That right there is why science brings us computers, space rockets, and artificial limbs, while religion brings us church shootings, gay bashing, and flagellation.

Science merely gives us an insight into the protocol of the operating system.

While religion only provides insight about one's own anus.

[the joint]

The point is simple -- if an Intelligent Designer exists, there is no physical evidence that could theoretical exist that would prove it.

all the evidence strongly suggests (...)

Irrelevant.  

That right there is why science brings us computers, space rockets, and artificial limbs, while religion brings us church shootings, gay bashing, and flagellation.

Science merely gives us an insight into the protocol of the operating system.

While religion only provides insight about one's own anus.

But what scientific evidence suggests does not say anything about God one way or the other.  It is totally false when you say something like, "The evidence suggests there is no God who cares about us," for it is just as much of a woo-ful statement as someone who says that quantum entanglement suggests we are all one consciousness, or something equaly woo-like.  You're engaging in the same nonsensical reasoning that you deplore, and apparently you don't care.

I have a feeling you're wrapped up in a false dichotomy you're unaware of.  Your apparent false premise is that belief in Intelligent Design must stem from some book or supposed holy person whose word must be taken axiomatically.  Consequently, your consideration of the debate is naive at best.  You completely ignore the possibility that some people may have a means of deriving a belief in God from logical principles, or at least deriving its plausibility -- a means you have not considered.   Empiricism is the sea scientists swim in, and far too many overstep their bounds and falsely believe science can conclude upon *every*thing.  It can't.  Philosophers and logicians know this well, and despite many philosophers' comparative lack of concrete knowledge regarding various scientific findings, they can often school most scientists in terms of understanding the general conceptual strengths and limitations of their field.