So...why is it religions hate each other and atheists?

by Boudica Mon Oct 29, 2012 11:41 pm

First topic message reminder :

Having given the topic some serious consideration, I have no idea why the religious hate each other and the irreligious. And vice versa, of course.

Despite being collective worship coordinator at my secondary school, I am an athiest. Not proudly so, I might add - I just don't have faith in a deity or multiples thereof. Having said that, I have no issue with anyone who does. Harnessed in the right way, it can be an astonishing force for good.

I suspect the umbrella I would fall under is humanist, although I have never chosen a banner for myself. I believe in people: the family and friends around me; my students and colleagues; members of the human race in general.

The thing I object to is the evangelising fraternity who,when I politely reject their view of the universe, choose to label me as ... well, all sort of insulting and unfair nonsense. At this stage, please believe that I find Richard Dawkins as irritating as any ayalloah, church elder or priest.

Ultimately, if your religion fascilitates your ability to be a good, kind and humane person, brilliant. If you can be the same without a god, more power to your elbow.

So why can't we leave each other to get on with it?

by polyglide Sat May 18, 2013 11:01 am

Shirina, to consider anything you first have to understand that which is in question.

Words are used to convey to another that which they wish to.

There are accepted usages of the words as detailed in any dictionary.

The word athiest is clearly stated as and nothing more, than one who does not belive in God.

It has nothing to do with Greek mythology or anything else.

AS uaual you do not keep to the question but wonder off into the wilderness.

by snowyflake Sat May 18, 2013 11:34 am

The word athiest is clearly stated as and nothing more, than one who does not belive in God.

An atheist is a person who lacks belief in God/gods/god. As there are 3000+ gods invented by humans over the millennia, by definition you are an atheist of all of those other gods. A complete atheist just goes that extra step and discounts all of them.

by Guest Sat May 18, 2013 3:19 pm

Shirina wrote:https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t681p480-sowhy-is-it-religions-hate-each-other-and-atheists#40769
Atheists are believers
I've soundly refuted this claim.

Merriam-Webster
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheist

atheist

athe•ist noun \ˈā-thē-ist\

Definition of ATHEIST

: one who believes that there is no deity

By definition of Merriam-Webster, an atheist believes that there is no deity, accordingly, by definition of Merriam-Webster, an atheist is a believer that there is no deity.

I await your refutation of Merriam-Webster.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheist

Atheist Empire
http://atheistempire.com/atheism/defined.html

Atheist and Atheism Defined
English: atheist
Cambridge International:
someone who believes that God or gods do not exist

By definition of Atheist Empire, an atheist believes that God or gods do not exist, accordingly, by definition of Atheist Empire, an atheist is a believer that God or gods do not exist.

I await your refutation of Atheist Empire.
http://atheistempire.com/atheism/defined.html

Murray v. Curlett, 374 U.S. 203, 83 S. Ct. 1560, 10 L.Ed.2d (MD, 1963)
http://atheists.org/atheism

Your petitioners are atheists and they define their beliefs as follows. An atheist believes¹ that heaven is something for which we should work now – here on earth for all men together to enjoy.

An atheist believes² that he can get no help through prayer but that he must find in himself the inner conviction and strength to meet life, to grapple with it, to subdue it, and enjoy it.

An atheist believes³ that only in a knowledge of himself and a knowledge of his fellow man can he find the understanding that will help to a life of fulfillment.

An atheist believes⁴ that a hospital should be built instead of a church. An atheist believes⁵ that a deed must be done instead of a prayer said.

He believes⁶ that we cannot rely on a god or channel action into prayer nor hope for an end of troubles in a hereafter.

He believes⁷ that we are our brother's keepers and are keepers of our own lives; that we are responsible persons and the job is here and the time is now.

By definition of petitioners in Murray v. Curlett, 374 U.S. 203, 83 S. Ct. 1560, 10 L.Ed.2d (MD, 1963), an atheist believes seven things, accordingly, by definitionof petitioners in Murray v. Curlett, 374 U.S. 203, 83 S. Ct. 1560, 10 L.Ed.2d (MD, 1963), an atheist is a believer of seven things.

I await your refutation of petitioners in Murray v. Curlett, 374 U.S. 203, 83 S. Ct. 1560, 10 L.Ed.2d (MD, 1963).
http://atheists.org/atheism

by Shirina Sat May 18, 2013 4:01 pm

I await your refutation

I've soundly refuted this claim. It's been two days and no refutation or rebuttal of any merit has been offered.

Therefore, my original argument still stands.

Let's hear all about how Christians only "believe" that Zeus doesn't exist.

by Shirina Sat May 18, 2013 4:06 pm

It has nothing to do with Greek mythology or anything else.

AS uaual you do not keep to the question but wonder off into the wilderness.

I can't help it if you appear to be unable or unwilling to grasp the nuances of the English language.

(I really miss the good old days of religious debates that involved point, counterpoint, counter-counter point instead of the brick walls and stagnant ad nauseum posts that I'm confronted with now).

by Guest Sat May 18, 2013 4:21 pm

Shirina wrote: https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t681p510-sowhy-is-it-religions-hate-each-other-and-atheists#40797
I await your refutation
I've soundly refuted this claim.

You have refuted neither Merriam-Webster, Atheist Empire, nor petitioners in Murray v. Curlett, 374 U.S. 203, 83 S. Ct. 1560, 10 L.Ed.2d (MD, 1963).

By definition of Merriam-Webster, an atheist believes that there is no deity, accordingly, by definition of Merriam-Webster, an atheist is a believer that there is no deity.

I await your refutation of Merriam-Webster.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheist
By definition of Atheist Empire, an atheist believes that God or gods do not exist, accordingly, by definition of Atheist Empire, an atheist is a believer that God or gods do not exist.

I await your refutation of Atheist Empire.
http://atheistempire.com/atheism/defined.html
By definition of petitioners in Murray v. Curlett, 374 U.S. 203, 83 S. Ct. 1560, 10 L.Ed.2d (MD, 1963), an atheist believes seven things, accordingly, by definitionof petitioners in Murray v. Curlett, 374 U.S. 203, 83 S. Ct. 1560, 10 L.Ed.2d (MD, 1963), an atheist is a believer of seven things.

I await your refutation of petitioners in Murray v. Curlett, 374 U.S. 203, 83 S. Ct. 1560, 10 L.Ed.2d (MD, 1963).
http://atheists.org/atheism

by Shirina Sat May 18, 2013 4:31 pm

by polyglide Mon May 20, 2013 1:24 pm

Athiests do believe but in all the wrong things.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sat Oct 12, 2013 12:15 pm

Boudica wrote:Having given the topic some serious consideration, I have no idea why the religious hate each other and the irreligious. And vice versa, of course.

Despite being collective worship coordinator at my secondary school, I am an athiest. Not proudly so, I might add - I just don't have faith in a deity or multiples thereof. Having said that, I have no issue with anyone who does. Harnessed in the right way, it can be an astonishing force for good.

I suspect the umbrella I would fall under is humanist, although I have never chosen a banner for myself. I believe in people: the family and friends around me; my students and colleagues; members of the human race in general.

The thing I object to is the evangelising fraternity who,when I politely reject their view of the universe, choose to label me as ... well, all sort of insulting and unfair nonsense. At this stage, please believe that I find Richard Dawkins as irritating as any ayalloah, church elder or priest.

Ultimately, if your religion fascilitates your ability to be a good, kind and humane person, brilliant. If you can be the same without a god, more power to your elbow.

So why can't we leave each other to get on with it?

Religions compete in a niche market, when polytheism was abandoned for monotheism this became a much more aggressive version of belief. As can be seen from the attitude ubiquitous in the old testament. As for living together and letting one another get on with it, well if beliefs made no demands that would be fine, but they generally reflect the views, good and bad, of the cultures and societies that spawned and formed them. The inherent problem is when societies evolve in almost complete isolation from one another and have polarised views on major issues, see the middle east and developing countries against modern developed democracies. The added dimension of believing their views are sanctioned by an omnipotent deity who doesn't bargain over it's laws and the position becomes fairly entrenched. The results are fairly obvious and predictable. Try championing the rights of women or homosexuals in strict muslim countries and you'll see that the efficacy of your moral polemic doesn't cut much ice.

by stuart torr Sat Oct 12, 2013 1:02 pm

Hi Sheldon, well that should give them something to think about should it not, you might get one or two replies also when they have had time to digest it all.

by AW Sat Oct 12, 2013 1:28 pm

They do say that there is just enough love in the world to make everybody hate each other and not enough to make everybody love each other.

by Bellatori Sat Oct 12, 2013 1:35 pm

Guest wrote:... atheist...
I await your refutation

I am not sure whether there is much purpose in responding to a guest but you might like to consider the following. Much of what you write is based on a wide range of definitions of atheism, most of which are extensions of the original etymological meaning.

"1570s, from French athéiste (16c.), from Greek atheos "without god, denying the gods; abandoned of the gods; godless, ungodly," from a- "without" + theos "a god" from The online Etymological Dictionary

One needs to step back slightly further. The idea is basically a response to theism viz. those who believe in a god or gods.. In fact if you think about it, theism is simply the premise that there is a God. That means that Atheism in its simplest form is simply the rejection of this premise.

I would suggest you look at the thread Why the 'You cannot prove God does not exist' argument fails to see why not accepting a premise does not require belief per se.

by Norm Deplume Sat Oct 12, 2013 3:43 pm

polyglide wrote:

I have said on sevaral occasions I am not bothered about anything prior to the birth of Jesus, that is what my faith is based on.

That would rule out God, then since he/she/it pre-dates Jesus.

polyglide wrote:
Quoting old stories etc; written by man, is a waste of time as far as I am concerned, several men can see an action and you can have several entirely different stories covering the same event.

That rules out Jesus as well, the New Testament being old stories written by men.

This leaves faith based on nothing at all, which is wholly consistent with my view of it.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sun Mar 01, 2015 11:55 am

Boudica wrote:Having given the topic some serious consideration, I have no idea why the religious hate each other and the irreligious. And vice versa, of course.

Despite being collective worship coordinator at my secondary school, I am an athiest. Not proudly so, I might add - I just don't have faith in a deity or multiples thereof. Having said that, I have no issue with anyone who does. Harnessed in the right way, it can be an astonishing force for good.

I suspect the umbrella I would fall under is humanist, although I have never chosen a banner for myself. I believe in people: the family and friends around me; my students and colleagues; members of the human race in general.

The thing I object to is the evangelising fraternity who,when I politely reject their view of the universe, choose to label me as ... well, all sort of insulting and unfair nonsense. At this stage, please believe that I find Richard Dawkins as irritating as any ayalloah, church elder or priest.

Ultimately, if your religion fascilitates your ability to be a good, kind and humane person, brilliant. If you can be the same without a god, more power to your elbow.

So why can't we leave each other to get on with it?

Religious beliefs are all about power, what better way to claim validity for your opinions than to assign them to an all powerful deity. It's hardly a coincidence that people cherry pick their beliefs to suit their own prejudices and ideas. If your religion has to coexist with others it might in some people's minds suggest some sort of parity, the less tolerant the believer then the less tolerant their beliefs are, and the more extreme their reaction to the beliefs or even the non-beliefs of others. Of course contemporary monotheism changed the game in this sense, declaring the existence of just one god, and claiming unequivocally that it was belief in just this one god on their terms or eternal damnation. This is why it's been so hard historically for the churches to relinquish ideas and dogma that are so obviously erroneous, or even sometimes deeply harmful.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Fri Apr 03, 2015 5:22 pm

polyglide wrote:As well as everything else you cannot understand the meaning of common sense.

He really does use this same hilarious line that no one can understand what he's saying on everyone who dares point out that his beliefs are utter hokum. It appears the irony of this approach is wasted on him.

by snowyflake Fri Apr 03, 2015 9:24 pm

polyglide wrote:As well as everything else you cannot understand the meaning of common sense.

You say things like this a lot and frankly it's a stupid comment especially when you are not specific. Doc understands perfectly well how science works and is very rational and has more common sense in his little finger than you do. The evidence is there in his posts and any sensible, educated, rational person would compare your posts to his and your posts are basically rubbish and his are evidence-based.

If you were trying to convince someone that something is true, you would think that solid evidence would be important in convincing them. Yet, here you are trying to convince Doc that he doesn't know what he is talking about in spite of the evidence he has produced. You haven't produced ANY evidence whatsoever.

In light of no evidence from you and much evidence from Doc, who do you think rational, sensible, educated people are going to be swayed by?

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sat Apr 04, 2015 6:29 am

His posts show he doesn't seem to grasp the difference between empirically testable evidence and subjective opinion. He sees a living organism and it's complexity and is unable to reason that it could have evolved without a more complicated intelligence.

Irreducible complexity is hardly a new argument, but I don't think Polyglide even fully understands the concepts involved, but he certainly seems unaware that it is refuted by both tangible empirical scientific evidence, as well as sound logical arguments.

It seems ignorance really is bliss for him, quite literally. Though just why he comes here I don't know, as ignorance and faith of this sort will hardly be appreciated by a mainly atheistic audience.

Like so many theists he can't or won't accept how flawed and subjective experiential evidence is without a rigorous process to scrutinise it, in the way science does.

by snowyflake Sat Apr 04, 2015 7:55 am

He doesn't want to learn or know anything that might impede his chances of getting into heaven.

He's frightened, Doc. He had the same indoctrination as I did growing up. The church told us we were destined to everlasting hell fire and that frightened me. I now see it as child abuse. I was so frightened of ending up in hell and I was scared of death so I believed in god. However, no matter how much I believed in god, I 'sinned' (I was a bit of a naughty child) and then remembering hell and eternity and I wouldn't sleep because I thought I would die. I remember feeling physically terrified as a child at the thought of death.

Education, age and reason has cured me of this affliction. There are no invisible spirits lurking in the universe or ouija boards. When we die, that's it. We go back to the atoms from whence we came. Eternal life in a pretend cartoon paradise is not rational, there is no evidence for it and biological science doesn't support the continuation of the mind once the brain is dead.

Polyglide needs to come to terms with his impending death. It will be all right. You won't know the difference when your time comes. Have a good life and hopefully a peaceful death is the most that anyone can hope for.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sat Apr 04, 2015 10:50 am

I agree wholeheartedly, and my own childhood involved a religious indoctrination. Fortunately I was never short of questions growing up and religion simply had no satisfactory answers. Though I fought against the inevitable in my early twenties a friend much older than myself with a love of reading like myself gently suggested titles that did provide some answers. Yet these works made no claims to absolute knowledge, rather they showed the epistemological humility that the religion I had known lacked. So when answers came it came with humility of not fearing the unknown and the simple dignity in accepting things that were still to be discovered.

Though my formal education was brief and fairly mediocre a whole new world of learning opened up when I realised I could choose which topics and authors interested me. The little I have learned I've learned under my own volition, and it never stops of course.

by oftenwrong Sat Apr 04, 2015 12:52 pm

But just imagine. If this were the first year of the Christian era, people with i-phones would be posting pictures of the Crucifixion on You-Tube!

How would that be moulding our thoughts?

by snowyflake Sat Apr 04, 2015 12:54 pm

oftenwrong wrote:But just imagine. If this were the first year of the Christian era, people with i-phones would be posting pictures of the Crucifixion on You-Tube!

How would that be moulding our thoughts?

There is enough horrific stuff being posted to Youtube in the name of religion that has convinced me that there is no good thing about belief in unfounded, fantastical claims.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sat Apr 04, 2015 12:59 pm

polyglide wrote:As well as everything else you cannot understand the meaning of common sense.

If the evidence is anything to go by then sense is anything but common. Though like others I can't help but notice how everyone who rejects your superstitious beliefs is branded stupid by you, in one way or another. That's very egotistical, and hardly in keeping with the pious humility Christians are forever suggesting is one of the defining characteristics of their religious beliefs.

Tell me Polyglide, have you ever heard of the Dunning Kruger effect? I'm sure I mentioned it before, and fairly sure I posted a link to an explanation of this phenomenon. Though of course you won't have read the link, and probably didn't properly read the post. I'll link it again anyway.

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

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:08 pm

snowyflake wrote:
oftenwrong wrote:But just imagine. If this were the first year of the Christian era, people with i-phones would be posting pictures of the Crucifixion on You-Tube!

How would that be moulding our thoughts?

There is enough horrific stuff being posted to Youtube in the name of religion that has convinced me that there is no good thing about belief in unfounded, fantastical claims.

Indeed, and I'd agree with professor Dawkins's assessment that if we waste our time trying to morally rationalise ancient atrocities, then we risk applying the same rationale to contemporary actions of the same ilk.

by polyglide Tue Apr 07, 2015 10:43 am

Dr, Sheldon,
I am well aware of the above and can see some very good examples in some of your replies.

Of course Dawkin's is right, as I have said several times, we do not know all the circumstances prevailing at the time and therefore cannot make any reasoned assessment.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Apr 07, 2015 8:07 pm

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
I am well aware of the above and can see some very good examples in some of your replies.

Of course Dawkin's is right, as I have said several times, we do not know all the circumstances prevailing at the time and therefore cannot make any reasoned assessment.

I'm sorry but it isn't clear what you're referring to here as you've offered no quoted text for context. Professor Dawkins is an extremely intelligent and educated man, and though I don't necessarily agree with everything he says he has always struck me as a reasonable person who uses a well reasoned and logical thought process.

by polyglide Wed Apr 08, 2015 11:51 am

snowyflake,
I am a bit behind in replying regarding death.

My only real desire is to be a witness to the Armagedon which is not too far off.

I am 80 years old today and have no fear whatsoever regarding death, I have seen many deaths, the most tragic for me was that of my first wife who had cancer and suffered the most henious of deaths.

If anyone should feel God has let them down then my wife had every right to feel so.

I was the one who considered why she as a devout Christian should suffer so and let my feelings be known, her response was, why should it not be me it is not God who has brought all the ills into the world but Satan and he is running things at the present time.

I was with my father minutes before he died and he said, do not worry I have had a good life and am ready to go.

I have also seen many parts of the world and death is a daily accurance in every part, it is just a great pity that Adam and Eve betrayed God.

Have you ever wondered what a wonderful life mankind could have if he was in perfect health all the time and everything was as in the Garden of Eden as depicted in the Bible, who would want or need all the artificial monstrocities man has invented and he has only been able to do so because God made laws of nature that man has abused.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed Apr 08, 2015 1:06 pm

Polyglide wrote: it is not God who has brought all the ills into the world but Satan and he is running things at the present time.

1 Either god created Satan and does not stop him reaking his evil, and is therefore not benevolent.

Or

2. God can't stop him for whatever reason and is not therefore omnipotent.

Or

3. No god exists and what we see has a perfectly natural eplanation, and that rather conveniently fits all the evidence.

by polyglide Fri Apr 10, 2015 10:54 am

Dr, Sheldon,
I just cannot understand your lack of understanding.

I have explained and given the references regarding the present situation between God and Satan.

God created all angels other than Jesus, through Jesus and these were numerous, into the millions etc;

Satan challenged God because the angels as with humans have choices and Satan chose to defy God.

God could of course have wiped Satan out straight away but God had given him a choice and had to deal with the matter as he felt fit, the Bible explains how.

regards.

by polyglide Fri Apr 10, 2015 11:12 am

snowyflake,
I did not mention my sister in the previous post.

She had a daughter who was starved of oxygen whilst in hospital resulting making her brain damaged to the extent that she needed 24 hours a day care.

My sister did not attempt, as many would today, sue the hospital, she attended her daughter 24 hours a day for over fourty years the daughter actaully slept in the same bedroom as my sister and her husband.

After over fourty years of dedicated care Dawn died and within a few weeks my sister also died,

Not once did I hear my sister complain.

My wife and I for ten years held a social including dancing for the handicapped.

The usual numbers between 30 and 40.

Most were physically handicapped but joined in as best they could and looked forward to the event every week.

What was most obvious was the fact that not one of them complained about anything and all or most attended church and believed in God.

I have found in life that those who complain about their lot are usually those who have nothing to complain about buit are selfish self opinionated individuals.

As for myself, I have several health problems and have had most for many years and accept them as a result of mankinds inability to accept God's advice.

As for being afraid of dying or anything else, all I am realy afraid of is losing my sight which would deny me the pleasure of enjoying seeing the wonders God has created for us to enjoy.

I am content as a sinner to be judged by God on the basis of what is in my heart and not what anyone else may think.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Fri Apr 10, 2015 12:13 pm

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
I just cannot understand your lack of understanding.

I have explained and given the references regarding the present situation between God and Satan.

God created all angels other than Jesus, through Jesus and these were numerous, into the millions etc;

Satan challenged God because the angels as with humans have choices and Satan chose to defy God.

God could of course have wiped Satan out straight away but God had given him a choice and had to deal with the matter as he felt fit, the Bible explains how.

regards.

I can't understand why you keep insisting I can't understand. Your "explanation " is sheer unevidenced superstition, I understand it perfectly.

Even leaving that aside the logical paradox of claiming a benevolent omniscient omnipotent deity exists in a world with ubiquitous suffering can't be simply wished away with bare unevidenced fantasies.

It's a logical paradox and theodicy has tried in vain to solve it for thousands of years. Long before your own religion had been created.

The fact you think you've solved it just shows you don't fully grasp it, or perhaps just don't want to.

by polyglide Sat Apr 11, 2015 11:22 am

DR, Sheldon,
I agree that if you want to be dogmatic about everything comming from nothing and evolution explaining everything, then there is no point realy in discussing anything.

Of course one cannot prove God exists in physical terms, if that was so the explanation for everything would be clear.

However, what one can do is consider that which we do know.

We are aware of everything we see, aware that there are laws of nature that allow humans to use them for their benifit or otherwise, aware that life has many complexities that cannot be explained in any terms that can be substantiated from the beggining of life to this day etc;

So the fact is that no one knows all the answers or there would be no problem.

On the basis of my experiences and the facts as I see them, it is impossible for all that exists to have come about either by chance or without the aid of an intelligence far beyond our understanding.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sat Apr 11, 2015 11:27 am

Polyglide wrote: I agree that if you want to be dogmatic about everything comming from nothing and evolution explaining everything, then there is no point realy in discussing anything.

I'm not being dogmatic, it's you who claims to be 100% certain without any empirical evidence, not me.

I've never ever claimed evolution explained EVERYTHING. On the contrary I've tried several times to point out that it does NOT do this and has never been claimed to do this. Why you persist in misrepresenting it in this way only you can know.

by polyglide Sat Apr 11, 2015 11:38 am

DR, Sheldon,
Then perhaps you would be so kind as to tell me what you do believe.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sat Apr 11, 2015 1:36 pm

polyglide wrote:DR, Sheldon,
Then perhaps you would be so kind as to tell me what you do believe.

What do you mean by believe? I accept what is properly evidenced, the weight of evidence should obviously match the claim being made, the more unlikely the claim then the larger the weight of evidence that is required. The best method humans have created for this kind of rigorous and objective task is empirical science and it has an impressive record in a very short space of time.

My wife's grandmother is dying of cancer and nearing the end, and last night a syringe driver was administered to relieve her pain. As I sat watching her pitiful groans of pain I found myself wondering how many billions of humans, and of course other animals, have died in agony. No benevolent being that could stop this would permit it, the claim is absurd of course, but what was equally obvious was that the science so many theists deny and are sometimes hostile to and accuse of being cold and uncaring was what was actually relieving her suffering. What's more when cancer us cured, like innumerable other diseases, it won't be prayer that does it, or god, but science, as it has done innumerable times already.

I don't worship science as some theists like to suggest in a fit of pique when I reject their superstitious beliefs, but if I did it would be a far more reasonable object of worship than an imaginary unevidenced deity created in a bronze age superstition.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sat Apr 11, 2015 1:38 pm

You've ignored this again:

Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:I've never ever claimed evolution explained EVERYTHING. On the contrary I've tried several times to point out that it does NOT do this and has never been claimed to do this. Why you persist in misrepresenting it in this way only you can know.

The polite thing to do would be to finally acknowledge your error here, and my post, and not use this misrepresentation again. I'm not holding my breath.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sat Apr 11, 2015 3:15 pm

polyglide wrote:DR, Sheldon,
Then perhaps you would be so kind as to tell me what you do believe.

It occurs to me that there is no way to know what you're referring to here. What do I believe about what?

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sat Apr 11, 2015 3:18 pm

polyglide wrote: Of course one cannot prove God exists in physical terms, if that was so the explanation for everything would be clear. However, what one can do is consider that which we do know. We are aware that there are laws of nature

Most of which your religion has either got wrong, or claimed have been violated by some miracle or other, and not only can you not evidence these claims in any meaningful way, but many of them are palpably erroneous, like the Noah's flood myth that you actually think is literally true. Of course a person can believe anything if they simply wave away facts the way you do.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sat Apr 11, 2015 3:22 pm

polyglide wrote: On the basis of my experiences and the facts as I see them, it is impossible for all that exists to have come about either by chance or without the aid of an intelligence far beyond our understanding.

A laughable claim as you don't know what a fact is,you've shown this again and again. Do you seriously think you can claim scientific facts away with your own experience? Talk about delusions of grandeur. Did you experience the first 14 billions years of the universe? Perhaps if you are capable of answering that honestly you just might see the flaw in your outrageous claim. Have you studied and become an expert in chemistry, physics, biology, cosmology, or geology? These are just a few of the scientific disciplines you are claiming to know better than.

by polyglide Mon Apr 13, 2015 2:47 pm

Dr, Sheldon,
Along with not having an original thought of your own you laugh at things you do not understand.

I claim nothing, I give my own ideas and beliefs based on what I have experienced and I would wager they are far more than your own. [if I was a betting man].

My interest is not in what scientists discover, they can only discover what is there.

What I am interested in is how, why and when and not one scientist has a clue.

If you deny the above then explain when the universe started, with all the verifiable facts, hypothesis based, along with how life started, hypothesis based.

They are the things I am interested in and not facts that are obvious with a little thought that scientists bring out on the odd occasion.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Mon Apr 13, 2015 9:27 pm

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
Along with not having an original thought of your own you laugh at things you do not understand.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Ah that old chestnut again, are you ever likely to state what precisely you are CLAIMING I haven't understood, or offer any evidence to support it? What am i thinking of course you're not.

I claim nothing,
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Hilarious, you claim things endlessly, and never even attempt to evidence them. though to be fair I've come to realise that you don't understand the difference between subjective opinion based personal experience and proper evidence.

I give my own ideas and beliefs based on what I have experienced
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:QED, as I said, subjective personal experience is not proper evidence. Else when sailors were rescued from the sea swearing they'd been plucked from a watery grave by mermaids we'd have to accept mermaids existed. You don't think mermaids exist, do you?

and I would wager they are far more than your own. [if I was a betting man].
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:You'd wager what are far more than my own what?

My interest is not in what scientists discover, they can only discover what is there.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Priceless, incoherent drivel, but priceless nonetheless.

What I am interested in is how, why and when
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:How why and when WHAT?

not one scientist has a clue.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:I thought you didn't make claims, that looks like a claim to me. Odd how you think you know better than the entire store of scientific knowledge, as I said delusions of grandeur.

If you deny the above
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:If I deny the above what? You really must try to be more coherent.

then explain when the universe started, with all the verifiable facts, hypothesis based, along with how life started, hypothesis based.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Argumentum ad ignorantiam, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

They are the things I am interested in
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:You claimed you're 100% certain about your beliefs, so claiming you're interested in how the universe started when you've already claimed to be 100% certain it is explained by a bronze age superstition is not very consistent is it?

and not facts that are obvious with a little thought that scientists bring out on the odd occasion.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:I think we've all got a very clear picture of how disinterested in facts you are, scientific or otherwise, though it's gratifying to see you finally acknowledge it. Your denigration of science is meaningless of course, but by all means knock yourself out, I'm sure the world of science can cope. It won't stop science continuing to study and discover facts about the natural world and the universe, and removing systematically the gaps your god is hiding in.

by polyglide Tue Apr 14, 2015 3:48 pm

Dr, Sheldon,
As you are well aware there are numerous meanings of the word claim.

When I make a statement, that is what it is, a statement of what I believe, I do not claim God, I believe in him.

Of course I am interested in how God created everything, this is not a claim it is a faith and belief and an interest in how God works.

I have no object, clarifying this for the umpteenth time, in any scientific theory that has been tested and proven to be correct.

But I am not interested in what most of them do, just confirm the obvious.

I think my experiences in life will far outweigh your own, in seeing the ills of the world, people suffering, seeing the effects of what makind can do, Japan for instance, meeting through my work people from every walk of life, including scientists, breedeing animals, assisting those less fortunate and experiencing the last 80 years of mankinds decline into what in many instances would make an animal disgusted.

I trust that has answered most of your questions.

regards.

by Sponsored content