Telling lies for God

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:42 pm

First topic message reminder :

Creationism and ID, how much of this idiocy is simple delusion, and how much is outright mendacity? The more I have read the ravings of creationists the more I am inclined to doubt that they sincerely believe everything they are claiming. I mean that some of it is so obviously and ludicrously false, and requires denial of so many facts and so much evidence that I suspect they are deliberately lying. Further, I suspect they genuinely believe that a lie to help proselytise their chosen deity is regarded as a "good lie", and therefore not really a lie at all, but just a pragmatic approach to "fighting the good fight".

A little blunt sometimes, but this punchy article raises some interesting points about theistic debates, and the ludicrous old chestnut that "all beliefs ought to be respected". I have always maintained that what should be respected is the right to believe, not the belief itself, which in any intelligent rational society must surely be judged on the merits of its claims and evidence. Here's a taster, and a link....

"The tactics used by the creationists are identical to those used by the anti-vaccination liars, which is to stand up, tell a monstrous lie which requires a detailed technical response to show the truth, and then sit down leaving the question hanging and no time for an adequate reply. There is no difference in quality between "There are no intermediary fossils" or "There is no way that an eye can evolve" and "Vaccines are made from aborted foetuses" or "Thimerosal in vaccines causes autism". The lie is there, the spectators have heard it, and the liars rely on the fact that scientists take too long to explain the truth and are too polite to shout "That's bullshit!"

http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/comment/creationdebate5.htm

How many egregiously dishonest acts, and duplicities have theists and established religions justified in this fashion throughout human history I wonder? After all, in the pursuit of truth a lie is about as useful as a snooze button on a smoke alarm.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Apr 21, 2015 1:34 pm

Polyglide wrote: I will not reply to Dr, Sheldon again, anyone interested can consider what we debate on this matter.

it seems you realised your obvious error in claiming everything that exists must have been created. Now you don't have the integrity to admit it and prefer to sulk.

What created your deity polyglide and how did it create it?

by polyglide Wed Apr 22, 2015 10:49 am

Hi, Stu,
Looking forward to your reply.

Trust you are well.

Latest consideration.

They have found a void in space 1.8 Bn light years wide.

Do you think the creator has put this on one side for future developement?.

We cannot comprehend what we do think is explainable, this is not a contradiction, we know that the universe is great but the extent is beyond our understanding.

If you try to explain evolution in terms of stage by stage then you should be able to say which stage was missing at each stage and no one can do so relative to any animal or human, everything has always been there or that involved would not be capable of life as we know it.

Stu, just think for yourself.

If a thing exists it must have come from somewhere.

The most obvious question, how.

Can you honestly believe that everything just materialised from nothing?.

The only question I would like to find an answer to is, the origin of the creator.

There must be an answer, however, how did the circumstances arise that allowed this to occur.

Just a few things to think about Stu.

I know you will forgive a few spelling mistakes, but I apologise for any in advance, should they in any way change the point in question please say so.

regards.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed Apr 22, 2015 11:40 am

Polyglide wrote: Can you honestly believe that everything just materialised from nothing?

Science doesn't claim this, and never has. Again you're repeating a lie. Christianity claims it though, in the Genesis myth.

polyglide wrote:Everything that exists must have been created.

What created your chosen deity?

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed Apr 22, 2015 11:44 am

Polyglide wrote: If a thing exists it must have come from somewhere.

Where then did your god come from? What created it, and why aren't you worshipping that?

Polyglide wrote: They have found a void in space 1.8 Bn light years wide.

How is that possible when your creation myth ages the universe at just 6000 years? Did your god create that light en route?

by stuart torr Wed Apr 22, 2015 12:51 pm

Polyglide.
Yes I did read about the supervoid, 3billion light years from Earth and the moon.
It is 1.8 light years wide, maybe that is where our current universe came from, and who knows what is on the other side until scientists and more space travel can identify it more.
It is at least big enough to hold a minimum of 10.000 galaxies.
There has actually been another void found near the constellation Draco, so our universe is full of black holes called voids or super voids, which is where we could have come from in the first place, and there is more life out there and no creators whatsoever.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed Apr 22, 2015 1:13 pm

As you rightly point out stu, polyglide is using the logical fallacy argumentum ad ignorantiam or god of the gaps, as it is more commonly known.

It's worth pointing out that science is precisely the persuit of knowledge through the study of the physical universe. So without gaps in our knowledge science would be superfluous, and therefore claiming that gaps on our knowledge somehow discredits science is demonstrably stupid.

As you also point out stu not one shred of scientific evidence exists to support the existence of a creator, quite the opposite is true in fact as at every turn science has refuted theistic claims once touted as immutable truths.

The tedious relentless and false claim about evolution indicates several things.

1. Theists fear the truth of evolution.
2. Gaps in our knowledge of it don't in any way negate the evidence that science has amassed to support it.
3. polyglide is up to his old mendacious tricks and never shows what gaps he's referring to or evidence for this claim.
4. Even if his lie were in fact true, it would not in any way evidence a creator or creationism as the claim there can be only two explanations is entirely false.

Of course all this has been explained numerous times already, hence my thread entitled telling lies for god. As such obvious duplicity requires some explanation.

by stuart torr Wed Apr 22, 2015 2:19 pm

Well Sheldon you only have to read these things as they happen and you know do you not, it certainly puts the big bang theory to shame at times does it not?
Apologies for not answering sooner but have been out.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed Apr 22, 2015 5:39 pm

Not to worry stu, hope you're well.

At times I feel certain theists say these things, that they must at some level know are untrue, as some form of mantra to help them maintain faith when all the scientific evidence not only fails to support their beliefs but often refutes their claims utterly. Polyglide of course clearly has no understanding of science at all, not even a superficial grasp of its methods. Yet anyone could make themselves aware of basic scientific principles and methods such as falsifiability, and peer review, so his ignorance must be wilful as I've linked scholarly articles explaining both. As for someone repeatedly and incorrectly defining a scientific theory as if it represent someone's "best guess" well that can only be a deliberate lie, even before the correct definition of this scientific term has been shown them.

It seems obvious that anyone motivated to go to such lengths to disingenuously deny facts that anyone could verify for themselves with very little time and effort is trying to deny something to themselves as much as to anyone else. Such is the nature of delusion, but as Snowyflake has implied I think they believe they are storing up "brownie points" with their chosen deity by sticking their fingers in their ears and ignoring any facts that differ from their chosen beliefs.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed Apr 22, 2015 5:53 pm

polyglide wrote:If you try to explain evolution in terms of stage by stage then you should be able to say which stage was missing at each stage and no one can do so relative to any animal or human, everything has always been there or that involved would not be capable of life as we know it.

There are innumerable works explaining just such a stage by stage evolution. I have even linked some of the best contemporary works. Professor Richard Dawkins' "Climbing Mt Improbable" is considered to be one of the best. I have no idea what you mean by missing, if you don't know what is missing how on earth can you know that anything is missing, the claim makes no sense? Humans are animals, so no distinction is necessary in this context.

Everything has not always been there, that's so stupidly wrong it's hard to believe anyone would make such a claim in earnest. The geological record would only once have to show the fossilised remains of a human in the same era as a dinosaur and it would be all over for evolution, that is called falsifiability, of course it has never happened as hundreds of millions of years of evolution separate the species. Polyglide keeps making these claims that are in complete contradiction of all the scientific evidence, yet seems oblivious to how idiotic they are.

"Macroevolution is evolution on a scale of separated gene pools. Macroevolutionary studies focus on change that occurs at or above the level of species, in contrast with microevolution, which refers to smaller evolutionary changes (typically described as changes in allele frequencies) within a species or population. Macroevolution and microevolution describe fundamentally identical processes on different time scales.
The process of speciation may fall within the purview of either, depending on the forces thought to drive it. Paleontology, evolutionary developmental biology, comparative genomics and genomic phylostratigraphy contribute most of the evidence for the patterns and processes that can be classified as macroevolution. An example of macroevolution is the appearance of feathers during the evolution of birds from theropod dinosaurs."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution

by stuart torr Wed Apr 22, 2015 5:57 pm

I'm having one of those days today Sheldon, nothing seems to go right, Laughing

But as you say, it does seem as snowyflake implied i'm afraid, which is a shame
when you do actually think about it Sheldon, why anyone should do such a thing instead of looking at reality.
Also Sheldon polyglide described the void as 1.8bn light years wide (impossible) it is in fact only 1.8 light years wide?

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Thu Apr 23, 2015 10:25 am

Sorry to hear about your day stu.

Getting back to the topic though, polyglide obviously has an extreme selection bias, he accepts only what he thinks confirm his a priori beliefs. What's ironic is not only is he unaware of this, but he projects this thought process onto those who disagree with him.

The bias is theirs, as is the denial of evidence, and most ironically he claims atheism require faith. A new line in religious apologetics that is becoming quite common. They don't see the irony in either denigrating one of the main tenets of their religion, or alternatively presenting atheism as having parity with theism even before the evidence is examined. I always allow myself a chuckle when theists use the "atheism is a faith" polemic.

by stuart torr Thu Apr 23, 2015 10:37 pm

Hi Sheldon.
Well polyglide must be the only poster that thinks atheism is a faith of any kind?
because when you do not believe in a god as such, why do you need a faith?

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Fri Apr 24, 2015 6:55 am

Oddly enough stu I've heard quite a few theists make that claim. My favourite quote in response is....

"Atheism is no more a faith than not collecting stamps is a hobby."

As I said above though, it seems very ironic to me that theists would denigrate faith in this way given that it represents one of the main tenets of their religion. Otherwise they would be suggesting that faith makes atheism at least as valid as any other belief even before any evidence is examined. The theists who make this claim don't seem to spot the irony.

by polyglide Fri Apr 24, 2015 10:50 am

Hi Stu,
Trust you are well.

About a month ago the scientists came up with the latest dinosaur, it was 30 meters long and weighed 45 tons.

Suprise, suprise, they have now discovered another skeleton from a dinosaur that is 60 meters long and weighs 90 tons.

Can you imagine such an animal roaming about the earth, I would wager that the next one will be 90 meters long and weighing 135 tons.

Someone is having a laugh and testing man's intelligence.

by stuart torr Fri Apr 24, 2015 1:39 pm

So why do they test our intellegence Polyglide? as these things did roam the Earth and England,so?

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Fri Apr 24, 2015 2:14 pm

polyglide wrote: Someone is having a laugh and testing man's intelligence.

For once I am in complete agreement. As no sane person could post such rubbish unless they were being facetious.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Fri Apr 24, 2015 2:18 pm

stuart torr wrote:So why do they test our intellegence Polyglide? as these things did roam the Earth and England,so?

He's trolling stu, must be. It's the only rational explanation for posting such made up nonsense. Haven't you noticed his handy little factoids are never troubled with any relevant links, and never cite any evidence of any kind?

by stuart torr Fri Apr 24, 2015 3:53 pm

Hi Sheldon.
Opinion only is it not mate? any facts that are posted are wrong are they not?

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Fri Apr 24, 2015 4:08 pm

stuart torr wrote:Hi Sheldon.
Opinion only is it not mate? any facts that are posted are wrong are they not?

I'm not sure how how he thinks he can keep claiming things about what a scientists or scientists have said when he never ever names the scientist or cites the research. As far as scientific knowledge is concerned his posts have zero credibility anyway, since he ignores facts, denies peer reviewed empirical evidence, and even misrepresents well known scientific definitions like scientific theory, or even science itself with his asinine claim that science uses unnatural methods? How can something whose sole purpose is the study of the natural physical world and universe use unnatural methods? Who is he claiming said it? Oh that's right "a scientist" he happened to hear, funny how these convenient quotes don't warrant names or evidence.

by stuart torr Fri Apr 24, 2015 5:06 pm

I really do try telling him politely Sheldon, that this is not right etc and this has been found out etc,but he speaks to me politely unlike he does you, but he asks me to quote this and that which I do and all he does is ignore me and attack you.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Fri Apr 24, 2015 9:06 pm

stuart torr wrote:I really do try telling him politely Sheldon, that this is not right etc and this has been found out etc,but he speaks to me politely unlike he does you, but he asks me to quote this and that which I do and all he does is ignore me and attack you.

Not to worry stu, his insults are not much bother, and as Norm said it's obvious to anyone reading when someone starts hurling personal insults that it's because they know their argument is non-existent. I suspect he thinks he's scoring brownie points with god by attacking me in that way, as he gives the impression that he thinks atheism is evil. I'm afraid he doesn't understand the concept of evil anyway, or that it's actually a human concept that is only our way of trying to define certain types of behaviour. I had a similar response from MBen on that topic as he didn't seem to grasp for instance that an animal acting on instinct might do something we'd think of as evil, but an animal can't really be evil in the same sense a human can, as humans have more choice due to our evolved intellect. The greater the intellect the more choice, and therefore the more culpable a being would be for it's actions. Which is why blaming humans for all the evil in a world created by a being with limitless knowledge and power is absurdly illogical.

by stuart torr Fri Apr 24, 2015 9:53 pm

Especially as his God is supposed to have created us in the first place and we are supposed to take after this god, and be decidedly pure, yet why does his god allow humans to be evil or do evil things?

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Fri Apr 24, 2015 11:10 pm

stuart torr wrote:Especially as his God is supposed to have created us in the first place and we are supposed to take after this god, and be decidedly pure, yet why does his god allow humans to be evil or do evil things?

Well his problems don't end there as a truly omniscient being would have known in advance exactly what was going to happen. So it would have planned it all that way, and all choice would be an illusion. There is no way around this paradox without attempting to redefine the dictionary definition of omniscience to allow him to limit what he claims is limitless intelligence.

by polyglide Sat Apr 25, 2015 10:47 am

Hi, Stu,
You miss the whole point regarding God and good and evil.

Man has a free will, he decides whether to be good or bad.

God plays no part in it, if you think so then show me the reason you so think.

You say the dinosaurs roamed the earth, the only conclusive evidence of this would be if you actually saw one doing so.

Man can fake many things and he is just a man, think what a being capable of producing life and all things could do.

Or alternatively, leading one astray.

God created all things in the beginning, this does not preclude others having similar powers, as indicted when angels came down to earth as human forms etc;

How easy for the like to fake bones and implant DNA etc; to fool the foolish.

Just a thought.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sat Apr 25, 2015 2:13 pm

polyglide wrote: You say the dinosaurs roamed the earth, the only conclusive evidence of this would be if you actually saw one doing so.

God created all things in the beginning, this does not preclude others having similar powers, as indicted when angels came down to earth as human forms etc; How easy for the like to fake bones and implant DNA etc; to fool the foolish.

Just a thought.

Certifiable delusional nonsense, you're tossing out rigorously tested and scrutinised empirical evidence in favour of bizarre completely unevidenced claims about imaginary supernatural beings. The whole lot gets Hitchen's razor. The claims of course are logically contradictory as well, since a being with limitless power could easily stop us being tricked in this way, and a benevolent being would do so.

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

Epicurus 341–270 BC

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sat Apr 25, 2015 2:17 pm

Polyglide wrote:How easy for the like to fake bones and implant DNA etc; to fool the foolish.

Though of course if this was complete unadulterated fantasy then how would the evidence be different to what we see? It's hard to know what to say to anyone who genuinely thinks that such a claim represents rational cogent thought.

by Norm Deplume Sat Apr 25, 2015 6:39 pm

polyglide wrote:
You say the dinosaurs roamed the earth, the only conclusive evidence of this would be if you actually saw one doing so.

God created all things in the beginning, this does not preclude others having similar powers, as indicted when angels came down to earth as human forms etc;

The only conclusive evidence for this would be if you actually saw one doing so.

polyglide wrote:
How easy for the like to fake bones and implant DNA etc; to fool the foolish.

It's even easier to make up stories and pretend they are true. Someone will always believe the fiction.

Just a thought.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sun Apr 26, 2015 12:27 am

polyglide wrote: You say the dinosaurs roamed the earth, the only conclusive evidence of this would be if you actually saw one doing so.

Polyglide wrote: God created all things in the beginning,

The only conclusive evidence of this would be if you actually saw him doing so. My apologies to Norm for plagiarising his idea.

It's also obvious that science has discovered mountains of empirical testable evidence for the existence of dinosaurs to which the only answer you have is an absurd and completely un-evidenced supernatural conspiracy theory, whereas there isn't a shred of empirical evidence for creationism.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sun Apr 26, 2015 12:42 am

Here are the ten most commonly used idiotic creationist arguments used to try and deny scientific facts:

http://io9.com/5965884/draft-10-claims-made-by-creationists-to-counter-scientific-theories

Perhaps that'll save Polyglide rehashing them piecemeal.

by snowyflake Sun Apr 26, 2015 9:18 am

polyglide wrote:You say the dinosaurs roamed the earth, the only conclusive evidence of this would be if you actually saw one doing so.

The evidence of dinosaurs roaming this planet is conclusive. Entire dinosaur skeletons have been found.

polyglide wrote:Man can fake many things and he is just a man, think what a being capable of producing life and all things could do.

Man did not fake over 700 species of dinosaurs, create an entire science related to dinosaurs (paleontology) that has been going for over 200 years.

polyglide wrote:God created all things in the beginning, this does not preclude others having similar powers, as indicted when angels came down to earth as human forms etc;

Were you there to observe this? Did you actually see this happening? You expect that atheists must be present at the time of dinosaurs in order to prove that they existed so I expect you apply the same criterion to yourself?

polyglide wrote:How easy for the like to fake bones and implant DNA etc; to fool the foolish.

That's one of the stupidest things ever said by anyone ever. Rolling Eyes

polyglide wrote:Just a thought.

No I don't think it is. I don't think you put any thought into anything you say.

by stuart torr Sun Apr 26, 2015 7:45 pm

Polyglide how can you really be answered seriously when you come out with posts like you just have done? so now you are saying there is more than one faked god? no such thing as angels came down and took human form? which science fiction novel have you been reading to come up with this one this time as it is a new one to us.
Please go away and think very seriously before you post again with regards to dinosaurs roaming the Earth, because that is a fact.

by snowyflake Sun Apr 26, 2015 8:31 pm

Sorry but there is some serious stupidity at play here. No one can be this ignorant or deluded and not be locked up and sedated.

by stuart torr Sun Apr 26, 2015 9:06 pm

I know snowyflake, I tried my best to understand and converse with him, but even I had to admit to myself that the plot was lost somewhere?

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sun Apr 26, 2015 9:57 pm

snowyflake wrote:Sorry but there is some serious stupidity at play here. No one can be this ignorant or deluded and not be locked up and sedated.

Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.
Albert Einstein

I'd like to believe he's just an unimaginative troll, and I'm certainly not righting the idea off completely, but it's hard to see what anyone would get from his posts. Besides the execrable spelling, the appalling grammar, not knowing the difference between a spelling error and a typographical one, plus his obvious ignorance across a range of topics, even the most basic understanding of simple concepts and word definitions, and his hilarious claim to be an expert debater, then finally his penchant for resorting to petulant childish ad hominem, all suggest he is unfortunately being genuine, and that he actually believes he's the smartest poster here, and everyone else is too stupid to grasp what he's saying. I'm thinking an extreme case of the Dunning Kruger effect?

by stuart torr Sun Apr 26, 2015 10:52 pm

Could be true actually Sheldon,definitely thinking he's brighter than he is.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sun Apr 26, 2015 11:04 pm

stuart torr wrote:Could be true actually Sheldon,definitely thinking he's brighter than he is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

by stuart torr Sun Apr 26, 2015 11:08 pm

Same one that I read. Laughing

by stuart torr Sun Apr 26, 2015 11:10 pm

Bed time mate ready for canvassing tomorrow and telephone canvassing too, so a long day.

by polyglide Mon Apr 27, 2015 1:49 pm

snowyflake,
Just because you are unable to come down to earth and consider things in a general manner instead of relying on men with glasses and bunsen burners and many with the only intent to prove man is the highest for of life does not negate the obvious.

The only proof of a living dinosaur would be to actually see one, there are many skeletons in many cupboards etc;

by stuart torr Mon Apr 27, 2015 1:55 pm

only proof of god is to see him?

by polyglide Mon Apr 27, 2015 2:54 pm

Stu,
This is the third time I have attempted to reply and is why I do not check my spelling etc, it gets tedious when the post just dissapears.

You do not have to see everything to know it exists.

We know Dark Matter exists we know Energy exists and we cannot see either.

An animal is a different matter.

It must be obvious even to the stupid that the refference to dinosaurs was a wind up.

Them bones, them dry bones etc;

However, when you talk about God you have to look at the matter taking into account all the relevant facts.

The first consideration being, does man think in the whole universe he is the most intelligent and the be all and end all?.

If one does then one must be deluded beyond any understanding.

If one accepts that he is not, then the only alternative being there is someone or something greater and with more powers and intelligence.

They are the only two alternatives.

Take your pick,

by Sponsored content