Telling lies for God

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.

polyglide wrote: you cannot tell the difference between can and can't etc.

Well I'm happy for everyone to read my posts and see if I can't understand the difference.

Polyglide wrote:You continually remark about beinmg personal and yet all your posts include same.

I point out your childish use of ad hominem, when you use it, if it is continual then you might want to consider what that indicates. Again I'm happy for everyone to read the exchanges and decide for themselves which of us resorts relentlessly to ad hominem. I'd remind you that is was you, and not me, that was warned several times, and banned for the same.

Polyglide wrote:You say you do not believe in God yet debate his existance as a fact.

Again it's existence, and I have no idea what the rest of that sentence means or what it is claiming, but my disbelief in the existence of deities is a matter of record.

Polyglide wrote: You think an omnipotent being cannot agree to an arrangement with another being

No I don't, I think no omnipotent being exists, and I have said so. Why you must make up such absurd lies I really don't know. 

Polyglide wrote:and have a very limited understanding of omnipotence when applied to God.

So you keep repeating in every posts, in a most petulant manner, but anyone who reads this exchange can see you're lying shamelessly, and I have posted and reposted the dictionary definition of the word, and applied it precisely in the context that the OED and Merriam Webster's apply it to a deity.

Polyglide wrote:You think unless a matter has been subject to peer review it is of no account,

   

No I don't another clumsy and stupid lie.         

Polyglide wrote:[Desperate Dan and the Beano spring to mind,  

And again you resort to ad hominem with no salient connection to the thread topic, or any points made.

Polyglide wrote:You have no understanding beween a lie and a difference of opinion.

 

Yes I do, though it's clear you think your repeating dishonest misrepresentations regarding what I've posted, as you've done here several times again, does not represent lies. I'm happy for anyone to read this and decide for themselves.                                              

Polyglide wrote:You think Darwin's theory answers everything

     

Just to prove the point and right on cue you post another bare faced lie, and one you've used before and I categorically repudiated.            

Polyglide wrote:when in fact all it is is a simple explanation of what can happen when unnatural circumstances arise.

Rubbish.

Polyglide wrote:You think science has only done good,

Another lie, sigh. Learn to read, I said science is not responsible for it's misuse, and I pointed to the innumerable good things it has achieved. You have only offered your biased bare claim to derogate it, and lies in response to my examples.

Polyglide wrote:when in fact it has caused far more problems for mankind than it has solve as the present state of the world clearly indicates.

List ten things that science has caused that you consider are not just human's misuse of scientific knowledge. So far you've offered not a single one, quelle surprise.

Polyglide wrote:I could go on and then I realised it is not omnipotence in your case I should consider but impotence

 
Well there you go, as good an example of pure ad hominem as I could need. Painting you as a thoroughly nasty piece of work who simply can't handle reasoned debate.

DR, Sheldon,
Mustard Gas.
Radio active material.
Atom Bomb
Rifle
Machine gun
Nuclear Bomb
Chemical Weapons, numerous.
Many treatments for illnesses causing worse problems than the illness.
Change in the weather.
Nutron Bomb etc; etc;

You may talk sense sometimes Polyglide,just waiting for that time to put the flags out.

Stu,
Dr, Sheldon asked fro 10 examples, I have given them and there are numerous others.

Stu,
Perhaps it would be better to just explain how I view Christianity.

As I have said previously and which it appears Dr, Sheldon cannot understand, I believe God is capable of doing everything and nothing is beyond his capabilities, I do not believe this restricts his options, he can either do or not do and make any decision he feels appropriate, in fact this gives God more options than any other being.

God will make decisions according to the circumstances and having given Satan his chance to defy him does not in any way change the facts.

Man was given choice and the vast majority of the ills man encounters are self inflicted, from illness to wars etc.

Even in the so called developed world children starve and in many parts are without even clean water, you cannot blame God when the remedy is at hand if mankind wished to do what should be done.

The worst enemy of manknid is mankind.

Excuses galore,he is either one or the other Polyglide,it is you making up excuses for your religion.

Stu,
Either one or the other what?.

If nothing is beyond his capabilities, why did he not finish satan off,instead of making a stupid agreement with him? because satan causes all the evils.

Stu,
We are gradually getting somewhere, yes Satan does cause all evil.

God will take care of Satan very shortly, after a few more earthquakes in diverse places and a little more pestulance along with governments turning against religion and brother fighting brother etc;

If you want God to take care of Satan you will not have too long to wait.

As I have said numerous times God's hands have been tied, not by anyone other than himself

God cannot do everything then can he?

Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:List ten things that science has caused that you consider are not just human's misuse of scientific knowledge. So far you've offered not a single one, quelle surprise.

polyglide wrote:DR, Sheldon,
                 Mustard Gas.
                 Radio active material.
                 Atom Bomb
                 Rifle
                 Machine gun
                 Nuclear Bomb
                 Chemical Weapons, numerous.
                 Many treatments for illnesses causing worse problems than the illness.
                  Change in the weather.
                 Nutron Bomb etc; etc;
                   

As I asked for then things science had caused, and specifically not just human's misuse of scientific knowledge you again miss the point spectacularly. Is it deliberate?

polyglide wrote:Stu,
   Dr, Sheldon asked fro 10 examples, I have given them and there are numerous others.

None of your examples are required by science, they represent misuse of scientific knowledge, as I said blaming science for how people use it is like blaming a rock when someone uses it to stone someone to death. On the other hand the good that science has done is almost unmeasurable, in terms of health care and medicine alone, much of the research derived from the science of evolution.In just 100 years we've seen the life expectancy of those living in developed countries go from a mere 40 odd to nearly 80, and all due to science.

Most telling of all is science is knowledge as Ivan has said, and knowledge helps eradicate ignorance, superstition and dogma. Religion held power for thousands of years and we'd still be burning witches, fearing lightning as supernatural, and living in a geocentric universe if science hadn't started to enlighten us from it's superstitions.

polyglide wrote: As I have said previously and which it appears Dr, Sheldon cannot understand, I believe God is capable of doing everything and nothing is beyond his capabilities, I do not believe this restricts his options, he can either do or not do and make any decision he feels appropriate, in fact this gives God more options than any other being. God will make decisions according to the circumstances and having given Satan his chance to defy him does not in any way change the facts.

So god chooses to allow evil and suffering, then god is not benevolent. I understand it perfectly, but your rationalisation contains an innate paradox that you seem incapable of grasping. The best theologians your religion have produced can't solve it, they call it theodicy.

Polyglide wrote:Man was given choice and the vast majority of the ills man encounters are self inflicted, from illness to wars etc.

Leaving aside the complete lack of evidence, you're ignoring at least two obvious contradictions here, firstly most wars throughout human history were and are fought by the religious, and secondly the vast majority of suffering occurred before humans existed.  

Polyglide wrote:   Even in the so called developed world children starve and in many parts are without even clean water, you cannot blame God when the remedy is at hand if mankind wished to do what should be done.

Stu doesn't blame god as he is an atheist, but if a god existed and was omnipotent then of course he'd be more culpable than humans, as he could end that suffering instantly by will alone.

Polyglide wrote:The worst enemy of manknid is mankind.

I'd dispute that, given the number of deaths that are caused by childbirth throughout human history or diseases like malaria, neither of which can even remotely be blamed on humankind. However humans have been most willing to commit the worst atrocities when they believe absurdities, and subjugate their morals, to a deity for instance, history has proved this again and again.

polyglide wrote: Satan does cause all evil. As I have said numerous times God's hands have been tied, not by anyone other than himself

If a deity allows evil then it's not benevolent that's the point of theodicy that I have made repetaedly throughout this thread, god almighty this is like herding cats.

I know Sheldon,I have put up with him posting to me emailing me ETC, then he told me off for having a go at him for calling you impotent,so I have asked him to pick his words a little better.

god almighty this is like herding cats.

Herding cats is impossible - maybe you could think of giving up the effort?

boatlady wrote: god almighty this is like herding cats.

Herding cats is impossible - maybe you could think of giving up the effort?

It's crossed my mind more than once to be honest, but as I said before examining even poor arguments and properly refuting them is a worthwhile exercise, for now anyway. I keep hoping somethign useful and informing will blossom from it, what's life without hope after all.

Hope for something more realistic, rather than

boatlady wrote:Hope for something more realistic, rather than

Ah but I said I was an optimist, not a realist. Truth be told I've always been something of an idealist. It's a real pain in the ar*e at times mind, but I'm too old to change now.

I do not think that I am too old to change Sheldon,but I would have to be given some very excellent evidence to convince me to,what say you?

DR, Sheldon,
Maybe "somethgn" may come of it.

You are so full of putting forward ad hominem and accuse me of same, then you call me a liar and a nasty peice of work, you talk about my spelling and yet cannot spell something?.

I have never lied about anything and the vast number of people I have helped both in work and with the handicapped could vouch for the fact, along with my several homosexual friends, I could take exeption and ask for you to removed from the site as an undesirable, however, I still hope and pray that in the end you will learn the meaning of words and the facts relative to God, as opposed to scientists, who, choose what you say, have caused more harm and potential harm than anyone.

polyglide wrote:DR, Sheldon, You are so full of putting forward ad hominem and accuse me of same, then you call me a liar and a nasty peice of work,

I was referring to your posts directly, and if I strayed over into ad hominem no one who reads your many uses of same could blame me, as you said to Snowyflake when you resorted to ad hominem towards her posts, if you can't take it, then don't dish it out. The difference of course is that Snowyflake hadn't used ad hominem whereas you never stop.

Polyglide wrote:you talk about my spelling and yet cannot spell something?.

Well I'm happy for everyone to look through the many times I have spelled it correctly, to see just how stupid it would be to claim one typo proved otherwise, and it is precisely this kind of nonsense that started me pointing out your infantile spelling. Lets not forget gems like prophercy (sic) and parcial (sic). I've told you before you'd really be wise to leave derogations of other people's spelling, grammar, and understanding of word definitions alone. Why draw any more attention to that than you need to?

polyglide wrote:I have never lied about anything

Another lie.

Polyglide wrote:
and the vast number of people I have helped both in work and with the handicapped could vouch for the fact,

No one suggested you'd lied to them.

Polyglide wrote: along with my several homosexual friends,

The ones you secretly think are abnormal unnatural perverts you mean, but haven't the integrity to tell them to their faces? Some would call this lying, pretending to be their friends when you secretly despise them. That's not my idea of a friend, and I doubt they'd want anything to do with you if you told them how you really feel. You are unwise to resume this line of discussion.

Polyglide wrote:I could take exeption and ask for you to removed from the site as an undesirable,

It's exception, and knock yourself out, seriously send admin a private message now saying that I'm an "undesirable", they probable find your childish ad hominem as tedious as the rest of us, and could use a laugh.  

Polyglide wrote:however, I still hope and pray that in the end you will learn the meaning of words and the facts relative to God, as opposed to scientists,

Dictionaries define words, and in each case where you have made ludicrous claims about word definitions I have quoted the OED definition for clarity, but please show one post of mine where I have wrongly defined a word, using a dictionary definition and a link, and I'll do what you never do, and acknowledge it. I look forward to this lie being ignored as per the rest. God has provided no facts as gods are man made, human science has recorded innumerable knowledge and successes in just a few hundred years.

I thought it rather hypocritical of him to be calling homosexuals this that and the other yet claiming to have some as friends Sheldon,how two faced can a person be?

stuart torr wrote:I thought it rather hypocritical of him to be calling homosexuals this that and the other yet claiming to have some as friends Sheldon,how two faced can a person be?

I'd say so, I'd also say it was rank dishonesty to pretend to be a friend to someone when you actually despise who they are, and it's hard to imagine another way to describe thinking someone is an unnatural, abnormal, perverted deviant, and those were polyglide's own words verbatim.

Again the irony here is that most theists have unloaded this bigotry and only fundamentalists like Polyglide cling to it.

Ireland becomes first country to legalise gay marriage by popular vote

Good for Ireland I say Sheldon.

stuart torr wrote:Good for Ireland I say Sheldon.

Yes indeed. I remember a line from a book, though I forget the title, and I'm paraphrasing but it went something like..."Nazism, Stalinism, the killing fields of Cambodia, the inquisition, the crusades, the Rwandan genocide, none of these are examples of societies that have become too tolerant."

As you say, good for Ireland, for so long an example of the worst kind of intolerance.

Just to clarify I wasn't singling out either side when I said Ireland had been an example of intolerance.

Stu,
I will be spending, along with my wife, all afternoon today with Mike one of my homosexual friends, as we do every Wednesday afternoon.

He is well aware that I think homosexuality is wrong according to the Bible, I also think indulging in drink to extreems is wrong, swearing is wrong, abusing children is wrong, murder is wrong, etc; etc; and all have a dictionary definition that is accepted by the intelligent.

Many of my friends indulge in some of the things I feel are wrong and that is their choice, Mike I am sure is well aware that homosexuality is classed as a perversion and has no connection with any other perversion I would not even think of calling him a pervert because he is a homosexual, just as I would not call anyone other than by their name, Mike is Mike.

Polyglide, have you told this "friend" that you consider him to be a "unnatural abnormal perverted deviants, " your own words?

If not then that's inherently dishonest.

Why would you want to be friends with someone you think is as described above? That's not the kind of attributes I'd befriend.

Why are you conflating murder,  rapine, and child abuse,  with homosexuality?  Homosexuality is harmless and consensual and more often than not a physical expression of love.

The dictionary definition of homosexual does not and never did support your definition.  It's a lie to say it did as many posters including myself posted the dictionary definition. Why are you repeating a lie?

polyglide wrote:Stu,
    I will be spending, along with my wife, all afternoon 

If you don't mind me asking is this your second wife? As you previously mentioned your wife had passed away. The reason I ask is it raised a theological question if you have no objection to it bordering on the personal?
I'll go ahead and ask and if you don't want to answer perhaps you can just offer a general view.

If you go to heaven will you be married to your first wife or your second, or will heaven accommodate some sort of polygamy?

Again if this is too personal then don't answer directly, but I'd appreciate a general rule here if you have one, as I have yet to hear a satisfactory answer.

polyglide wrote:  He is well aware that I think homosexuality is wrong according to the Bible,

So is wearing clothes with blended fibres, do you think that is wrong? The bible also thinks slavery is ok, and endorsed by Jesus according the NT, are you saying slavery is ok?

How is it ok to pick which parts you want to agree with? Or perhaps more saliently why would a being with limitless knowledge, power, and most of all benevolence, as the Christian religion claims, create or allow to be created a message this vague, contradictory, harmful and prejudiced?

Of course if humans created this then that all these problems and contradictions would largely disappear.

Dr, Sheldon,
I have no concern about answering your question and this is because I have the same problem, my fist wife was a devout Christian and although she suffered beyond belief whilst dying of cancer, over a period of 18 months and going from 9 stone down to 4 stone she never once blamed God or anyone else, her reply when I was annoyed and said why you? her reply was, why not me.

My wife was 49 years old, we were not well off but comfortable and our two children were doing well and we both had everything to look forward to along with our children, my daughter was distraught and has never to this day got over her mum's death but she is still a devout Chritian and looking forward to meeting her mum again.

As for your question, I would give anything to put my arms round my late wife and tell her how much I love her and hope to do so one day.

I will have to leave it to God to decide how matters work as I have no idea although it has crossed my mind on several occasions as I also love my present wife of 18 years.

I don't share your beliefs obviously, but thank you for honesty.

If clergy were honest, would religions die?

I do not think so. Based on the fact, some clergy are maintaining religions based on telling the truth and have stopped lying to their adherents. Knowing this, I wonder why the clergy of all supernaturally based religions continue to lie to their adherents.

In the more honest distant past, those who sought God; did so at a more intellectual level than most do today. The ancients admitted that nothing concrete could be known about God. God was said to be unknowable, unfathomable and worked in mysterious ways and that no attributes could be applied to God.

http://bigthink.com/videos/what-is-god-2-2

Today, the idol worshiping religions, like Christianity and Islam, have given what they still claim is an unknowable, unfathomable and mysterious God, with kinds of attributes; which of course are human attributes taken to the maximum of the impossible and delusional supernatural.

Some religions seem to be returning to the more intelligent thinking of the ancients.

Would the idol worshiping religions like Christianity and Islam, be well served if their clergy returned to telling the truth of what they can know of God, or are the clergy serving their religions better by continuing to lie to their adherents?

Regards
DL

P.S.
What is said here about politicians and business is a good analogy to what I think religions do.

Greatest I am wrote:If clergy were honest, would religions die?

Considering that religion IS a lie and religion is maintained, I would say no to your question. The human psyche relies on lies to comfort itself. Humans cannot bear the finality of death. It frightens them and so they spend their lives denying it. Death denial is the cornerstone of ALL religions. Once we accept our mortality, that this life is all there is, we are better human beings - not only to ourselves but to all other species on the planet.

I agree with all except the notion that truth would kill religions. Truth for instance, is not killing this particular preachers church.



Regards
DL

polyglide wrote:Dr. Sheldon,
                When you can get an elephant to mate with a mouse and get a Minny Mouse, then you will have proven evolution.

                 Good luck.

Poly.

China is working on a program to have an elephant produce a mammoth. If they succeed, is that close enough to your mouse elephant scenario or will you just changer your requirement when and if that happens?

Regards
DL

snowyflake wrote:I'm still trying to get my head around elephant-mouse sex, Doc. The mouse would always have to be on top for obvious reasons. Oral sex would be compleeeetely out of the question.

But, you know, if they loved each other, I wouldn't have a problem with it.

Now you have gone and done it.

I can visualize it now. The mouse in the back yelling to the elephant. Can you feel me now.

I do see a problem for the mouse sperm which are designed to swim for what, a quarter of an inch having to swim what is equivalent to 1,000 miles.

I hope that sperm had it's Wheaties for breakfast.

Regards
DL

polyglide wrote:

                 The problem is as I have said previously, what went bang.

                 The originator of the theory states very clearly that he nor anyone else can say what went Bang and what went before.
                                                   

I think that is healthier for a mind to think matter went Bang than to think that God went with a different sound.



Regards
DL