Atheism versus God

by JP Cusick Mon Oct 21, 2013 1:56 pm

First topic message reminder :

It is Atheism against God but God is not against Atheism.

That is a one-sided sword which cuts only one way.

It is important to give a general definition of Atheism as like on Wikipedia HERE.

Atheism is a negative concept, as in saying "no" as in no God, no Deity, no conscious higher power, etc.

So just because some one hates Christianity then that is not Atheist, or hating the scary Muslims is not Atheist, as one must reject the presence or the reality of any God by any name or form.

I myself declare the real existence of the "Creator Father God" but to use other names for the "Theo or Thea" is fine with me.

My view is that Atheism is simply a form of self-righteousness, because without the judgements of a God then people get to create our own righteousness, and that appears to be the true motivation for being an Atheist.

Question

by JP Cusick Fri Oct 25, 2013 4:03 pm

stu wrote:JP, you say we all have to wait for god wether we believe or not, you agreed with Shirinas post knowing that she is an atheist,and knowing she did not believe there was a god for any of it. THEN YOU DISAGREED AT THE END? Why therefore did you agree in the first place? it shows signs of double standards to put it politely.

That is because she was correct and even brilliant in the first place, and only that one small part at the end was she not correct.

Nothing and no one has to be completely right or completely wrong, as we all have elements of both.

I realize that some people claim to be Atheist, but God is not subject to any belief, and God is real whether anyone believes it or not.

==============================================

Dan Fante wrote:99% of men are winkers. The rest are liars.

I did not mean to imply that I did not wink at all, as I will wink at any Lady who will let me do so.

My point was simply saying that I do not "wink" as some sign of dishonesty or of sincerity, as I never ever do that kind of winking.

==============================================

Drew Jones wrote:To my mind gods are invented by their earthly patrons, to that end they function as a form of self-righteous judgement of others that is disassociated from itself. We all make our own judgements just some know this and take responsibility of it.

I agree that people create their own version of God, and people use our superstitions and prejudices and our fears to invent all sorts of Gods and spirits and Demons, and yes surely there are elements of self righteousness in it all.

Even Atheism is a man-made religion based on the human fears and prejudices.

I too have known of very few who "know this and take responsibility of it."

====================================

Norm Deplume wrote:Since God can be be considered an evil spirit, it's a good idea to avoid him/her/it.

Most people really are just terrified of God and that is the real reason why people know so little about the realities of God.

I also see the terror-of-God as the real reason for most religions, and for Atheism too.

Like a Star @ heaven

by Shirina Fri Oct 25, 2013 4:09 pm

Heretic wrote:And Sharina I apologise to you too as you have tried to calm things down. I know it can sometimes appear that there is a bit of bullying going on when many people react to a single persons post but a board like this is all about that.

Hey, Heretic, not to worry. I don't get all bent out of shape if some posters trade a few insults with each other. It's going to happen sometimes on a debate forum, and anyone wishing to debate such contentious subjects as religion and politics ought to have developed a pretty thick skin before stepping into the ring.

My only concern was what I call the sport of "Insult Ping-Pong."

(When members of a like-minded group bounce insults back and forth between themselves). For instance:

Poster C wrote:
Poster B wrote:
Poster A wrote:Yeah that guy is an idiot
Isn't he, though? He's as dumb as a person can get.
Dumb isn't a strong enough word to describe this moron.

by JP Cusick Fri Oct 25, 2013 4:19 pm

JP Cusick wrote:An interesting thing about abortions is that it is equivalent to the old days of sacrificing (killing) the babies as a sin offering.

Today it is done less messy and less drama but the point and purpose is the same as of old.

The baby (or fetus) is viewed as a "sin" or call it as a mistake or an accident or whatever, and by killing the baby (getting the abortion) then that is paying a blood price for the parents' sinning, and killing the baby is intended to create a much happier future.

I just learned this new part of the twist.

The idea that all people are made-up of "star dust" which came from exploding super-novas is just a fancy way of saying that humanity is created in the image of God - under an Atheist twist.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." So said Albert Einstein

Like a Star @ heaven

by Shirina Fri Oct 25, 2013 4:32 pm

polyglide wrote:The fact that over the ages thousands of people have ignored the warning is evidenced by the evil we find amongst the human of today and in particular amongst the athiests.

"In particular among atheists," eh, polyglide?

Why not back up this bare assertion with some statistics? How many criminals actually identify as atheists? How many terrorist attacks have been motivated by atheism? How many wars are currently being fought to promote atheism?

For instance, how do you explain why secular nations such as those found in Scandinavia actually have far lower crime rates and fewer incidents of violence than nations with high degrees of religiosity?

Perhaps you just have "faith" that atheists are evil?

polyglide wrote:I cannot see how God can be in any way considered evil, other than by someone with less brains than an ant, no that would be an insult to the ant.

This is precisely why religion is a corruption of morality rather than the source of it.

Do you actually read the Bible, polyglide? Only an evil God would tell the Israelites to commit genocide against other tribes (but kidnapping the virgin girls) all for the sake of a massive land grab.

Religion perverts morality by convincing people that there are times when committing an act of evil is actually an act of mercy and kindness. Deity worship corrupts morality by excepting the deity from having to act morally.

I know you're going to try and say that anything which occurred before Jesus doesn't matter ... except it does. The God you worship is the SAME GOD that sent she-bears to rip apart 42 kids, the SAME GOD that told the Israelites to utterly eradicate Sihon and Og and the Medianites and others. You can't walk away from that, especialy because, without God, the story of Jesus is pointless. No more "he gave his only begotten son" nonsense because ... who is "he"? Oh yeah, "he" is that pesky Old Testament serial killer deity that you worship.

And all of this is exactly why religion is a bane on society because as long as a person thinks he/she is acting on behalf of God, morality is no longer a factor. Anything goes.

by Shirina Fri Oct 25, 2013 4:35 pm

JP Cusick wrote:The idea that all people are made-up of "star dust" which came from exploding super-novas is just a fancy way of saying that humanity is created in the image of God

Actually, it's not.

The "star dust" description is just a poetic way of saying that matter and energy are recycled.

by JP Cusick Fri Oct 25, 2013 9:04 pm

Shirina wrote:The "star dust" description is just a poetic way of saying that matter and energy are recycled.

It is said that the old "King James Version" is poetic too.

king

by stuart torr Fri Oct 25, 2013 9:19 pm

JP But the idea that all people are made up of star dust is unbelievable.

by JP Cusick Fri Oct 25, 2013 9:39 pm

stu wrote:JP But the idea that all people are made up of star dust is unbelievable.

Unbelievable to who?

It is considered to be scientific fact.

Link here = Physics.org - We are all made of stardust. It sounds like a line from a poem ...

That is equivalent to saying that we are all made in the image of God.

Like a Star @ heaven

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Fri Oct 25, 2013 9:41 pm

JP Cusick wrote:
stu wrote:JP But the idea that all people are made up of star dust is unbelievable.
Unbelievable to who?

It is considered to be scientific fact.

Link here = Physics.org - We are all made of stardust. It sounds like a line from a poem ...

That is equivalent to saying that we are all made in the image of God.

You have read that link haven't you? It's not even remotely claiming we are literally made out of stardust. Rolling Eyes

by polyglide Sat Oct 26, 2013 12:03 pm

We go round and round Shirina.

I am not remotely interested, as I have said previously, in anything prior to the birth of Jesus.

We cannot understand the implications nor the meanings of much of the Bible because the circumstances prevailing at the time are not like those of today, nor the actual terminology the same.

As for all being created from stardust, I do not know how God created things, but it sounds like pie in the sky to me.

by Dan Fante Sat Oct 26, 2013 12:41 pm

polyglide wrote:We go round and round Shirina.

I am not remotely interested, as I have said previously, in anything prior to the birth of Jesus.

We cannot understand the implications nor the meanings of much of the Bible because the circumstances prevailing at the time are not like those of today, nor the actual terminology the same.

As for all being created from stardust, I do not know how God created things, but it sounds like pie in the sky to me.

Wow! Science and reason defeated.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sat Oct 26, 2013 1:11 pm

polyglide wrote:We go round and round Shirina.

I am not remotely interested, as I have said previously, in anything prior to the birth of Jesus.
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:Well that#'s your problem right there, focusing on 2000 year old myths is easier is you ignore the 14.5 billion years prior to that, and the salient question what was your god up to all that time if we are the main show?
We cannot understand the implications nor the meanings of much of the Bible because the circumstances prevailing at the time are not like those of today, nor the actual terminology the same.
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:Again that's only true if the bible's origins are entirely human, if they are a message from a being with limitless power and knowledge, that inexplicably waited over 14 billions years, and then contacted us 2000 years ago in ancient Palestine, you'd expect the message to reflect the beings omniscience and omnipotence, the fact it does not is very compelling evidence that the bible's origins are entirely human like every other religion humans have created, and there have been a lot.
As for all being created from stardust, I do not know how God created things, but it sounds like pie in the sky to me.
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:Creation sounds like pie in the ski to me as well, the reference to stardust was not a literal one, it was ascertaining that the chemical building blocks of our world hydrogen carbon etc etc were derivatives of exploding stars, there is evidence to support this.

by stuart torr Sat Oct 26, 2013 1:20 pm

Well the last time I had an op the surgeons did not find any stardust in me, very strange?

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sat Oct 26, 2013 3:12 pm

stu wrote:Well the last time I had an op the surgeons did not find any stardust in me, very strange?

Ask for a second opinion stu, you know what surgeons are like, mavericks, most of them. Wink

Maybe they could inject you with some?? Very Happy

by stuart torr Sat Oct 26, 2013 4:01 pm

Would I be able to fly then Sheldon? pig

by JP Cusick Sat Oct 26, 2013 4:04 pm

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:
JP Cusick wrote:
stu wrote:JP But the idea that all people are made up of star dust is unbelievable.
Unbelievable to who?

It is considered to be scientific fact.

Link here = Physics.org - We are all made of stardust. It sounds like a line from a poem ...

That is equivalent to saying that we are all made in the image of God.

You have read that link haven't you? It's not even remotely claiming we are literally made out of stardust.

Yes, the message and the link are saying literally that all people are made of stardust.

Link quote = " We are all made of stardust. It sounds like a line from a poem, but there is some solid science behind this statement too: almost every element on Earth was formed at the heart of a star. "

I myself believe this to be accurate and true, so science is on my side, and it is just another way of saying that we are all made in the image of God.

I dare anyone to give a link where science says anything other then this?

rendeer

by Bellatori Sat Oct 26, 2013 4:15 pm

JP Cusick wrote:...I myself believe this to be accurate and true, so science is on my side, and it is just another way of saying that we are all made in the image of God....

I would like to see a quote from a scientist in a reputable journal where it says any such thing Very Happy

by Norm Deplume Sat Oct 26, 2013 4:18 pm

JP Cusick wrote:

" We are all made of stardust. It sounds like a line from a poem, but there is some solid science behind this statement too: almost every element on Earth was formed at the heart of a star. "

I myself believe this to be accurate and true, so science is on my side, and it is just another way of saying that we are all made in the image of God.

I dare anyone to give a link where science says anything other then this?

You are the one making the claim that heavy elements forming in stars is equivalent to being made in the image of god, so it is incumbent upon you to provide the scientific evidence to support it. It is easy enough to cite peer-reviewed articles showing nuclear fusion producing metals under extreme conditions but it is less simple to find anything tying a hypothetical deity into the process. Without that your speculation is worthless.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sat Oct 26, 2013 4:22 pm

JP Cusick wrote:Yes, the message and the link are saying literally that all people are made of stardust.

Oh dear, the very first line in the story in that link:

We are all made of stardust. It sounds like a line from a poem, but there is some solid science behind this statement too: almost every element on Earth was formed at the heart of a star.After the Big Bang, tiny particles bound together to form hydrogen and helium. As time went on, young stars formed when clouds of gas and dust gathered under the effect of gravity, heating up as they became denser. At the stars’ cores, bathed in temperatures of over 10 million degrees C, hydrogen and then helium nuclei fused to form heavier elements. A reaction known as nucleosynthesis. During a supernova, when a massive star explodes at the end of its life, the resulting high energy environment enables the creation of some of the heaviest elements including iron and nickel. The explosion also disperses the different elements across the universe, scattering the stardust which now makes up planets including Earth.

Let's try again, as the heading is misleading perhaps, as the article does not say we are entirely made from stardust. It simply points out as is shown in my quote that many of the elements on earth are derived from exploding stars. I asked you before and you never answered, but is English your first language? I mean no offence, but you do seem to leap to conclusions and misinterpret what's written, and your posts are very difficult to decipher. Your risible religious claims are pure fantasy conjecture of course, but I'm starting to see that that is your raison detre.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sat Oct 26, 2013 4:26 pm

Bellatori wrote:
JP Cusick wrote:...I myself believe this to be accurate and true, so science is on my side, and it is just another way of saying that we are all made in the image of God....
I would like to see a quote from a scientist in a reputable journal where it says any such thing

I wouldn't, reputable scientific journals should stick to ideas that can be empirically tested, and leave fantasy for science fiction comics. Very Happy

by JP Cusick Sat Oct 26, 2013 7:31 pm

Norm Deplume wrote:
JP Cusick wrote:

" We are all made of stardust. It sounds like a line from a poem, but there is some solid science behind this statement too: almost every element on Earth was formed at the heart of a star. "

I myself believe this to be accurate and true, so science is on my side, and it is just another way of saying that we are all made in the image of God.

I dare anyone to give a link where science says anything other then this?

You are the one making the claim that heavy elements forming in stars is equivalent to being made in the image of god, so it is incumbent upon you to provide the scientific evidence to support it. It is easy enough to cite peer-reviewed articles showing nuclear fusion producing metals under extreme conditions but it is less simple to find anything tying a hypothetical deity into the process. Without that your speculation is worthless.

Science is inadequate for that comparison, as science is inadequate for many things.

As Einstein said = Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.

You trying to push everything under the guise of science just makes your self as both lame and as blind.

The seeing of the image-of-God in the stardust is an empirical view where a person must use our own eyes and senses in order to see it.

afraid

by Shirina Sat Oct 26, 2013 7:36 pm

stu wrote:Would I be able to fly then Sheldon?

Unfortunately, no, stu.

But you would be eminently qualified to be a politician. Because being injected with star dust would turn you into a gasbag full of hot air. cat

by Shirina Sat Oct 26, 2013 7:40 pm

polyglide wrote:I am not remotely interested, as I have said previously, in anything prior to the birth of Jesus.

I'm not interested in the bureaucratic procedure to ship an elephant to China, but that doesn't mean I can simply ignore it should I decide to do such a thing.

Just as you can't rightfully ignore the Old Testament simply because it causes major problems with your idea of Christianity.

polyglide wrote:We cannot understand the implications nor the meanings of much of the Bible because the circumstances prevailing at the time are not like those of today, nor the actual terminology the same.

That pretty much eliminates the entire Bible as a reliable source for ... anything.

polyglide wrote:As for all being created from stardust, I do not know how God created things, but it sounds like pie in the sky to me.

I would explain it to you, but you have a tendency to reject science when it conflicts your faith, so I won't bother.

by Shirina Sat Oct 26, 2013 7:43 pm

JP Cusick wrote:I dare anyone to give a link where science says anything other then this?

I dare anyone to give a link where any reputable and relevant scientist claimed that being made from star dust is the same as being created by a God.

by JP Cusick Sat Oct 26, 2013 7:47 pm

Shirina wrote:
JP Cusick wrote:I dare anyone to give a link where science says anything other then this?
I dare anyone to give a link where any reputable and relevant scientist claimed that being made from star dust is the same as being created by a God.

Science is inadequate for that comparison, as science is inadequate for many things.

As Einstein said = Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.

You trying to push everything under the guise of science just makes your self as both lame and as blind.

The seeing of the image-of-God in the stardust is an empirical view where a person must use our own eyes and senses in order to see it.

afraid

by Shirina Sat Oct 26, 2013 7:53 pm

JP Cusick wrote:As Einstein said = Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.

This is an example of the "argument from authority" fallacy.

Einstein is not a theologian and thus hardly qualified (any more than you and I) to give insights into God and religion. On this matter, his beliefs aren't any "more true" than the local pastor's, Kent Hovind's, or Pat Robertson's. Even geniuses can delude themselves. Einstein, of course, didn't believe in a personal god nor did he practice the rituals of any religion.

Unfortunately, however, people who aren't necessarily religious but who are in the public eye must often give lip service to religion in order to maintain credibility and popular support. Religion is like that -- irrational, overly sensitive, and quick to anger. That's why you have fundamentalist Muslims calling for the beheading of a teacher who merely named a teddybear "Muhammad" and why atheists are the least trusted demographic group in America -- even less than gays and Muslims.

by Heretic Sat Oct 26, 2013 8:19 pm

Shirina wrote:Unfortunately, however, people who aren't necessarily religious but who are in the public eye must often give lip service to religion in order to maintain credibility and popular support.

Either they are religious in which case they have a problem with atheists or they are atheist in which case they have a problem with the religious. In a secular society like England it is anathema to politicians to make mention of any faith during an election (as it smells of 'self righteousness' and hypocrisy) and from TV reports I understand it is very different in the USA where what we would call 'self righteousness' and hypocrisy is a necessary part of the political process.

We need to get to the place where somebody's religion or lack of it is of no relevance at all.

Then maybe we can make a judgements on all the other 'self righteousness's' and hypocrisies that make up the political process.

Heretic

by Norm Deplume Sat Oct 26, 2013 8:48 pm

JP Cusick wrote: Science is inadequate for that comparison, as science is inadequate for many things.

As Einstein said = Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.

You trying to push everything under the guise of science just makes your self as both lame and as blind.

The seeing of the image-of-God in the stardust is an empirical view where a person must use our own eyes and senses in order to see it.

You were the one who made the comparison, but could find nothing except your own conviction to support it. By now asserting that science is inadequate for the comparison, you are now implicitly distancing yourself from your earlier post. I think that is very sensible of you. It is clear to me, moreover, that religion is inadequate for most things relying as it does on imagination and fantasy over verifiable fact.

"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

by Heretic Sat Oct 26, 2013 8:50 pm

JP Cusick wrote:You trying to push everything under the guise of science just makes your self as both lame and as blind.

The more that is placed under the scrutiny of the 'scientific method' the better we are served as long as the 'scientific method' is itself placed under the jurisdiction of ethical and moral standards as well as the human heart. Our hearts and minds are different poles of the way we as human beings understand the world around us. If we use only one of these poles then we misunderstand part of the world we live in. It may draw great dividends to use one form of insight for a time in order to gain greater depth of understanding before we then bring it back under complete scrutiny at a later point.

Every piece of knowledge that we have has a relationship (of some kind) with both our minds and our hearts. How we see that knowledge at any moment and how we use it depends on our need at that time. To see things always from one point of view may make us financially valuable to others in this world where everything has a price but we lose something of our selves in that transaction. For us to fulfil our potential we need to adapt to our circumstances. Sometimes we need to wake up and smell the coffee but at other times we need to just sit down and enjoy the sunrise (I seem to see a lot more sunrises than sunsets but you make your own choice.)

Sorry I started off by thinking about one thing and gently drifted off track, I think I got somewhere worthwhile in spite of that.

Heretic

by Shirina Sat Oct 26, 2013 8:55 pm

Heretic wrote:We need to get to the place where somebody's religion or lack of it is of no relevance at all.

I completely agree. Unfortunately, due to the uber-religious nature of American society, a candidate's religion is a major talking point during elections. There are even debates between political parties over which candidate attended church more regularly, who prays the most, etc. I remember when Obama gave a speech in Indonesia back in 2010; the right-wingers screamed over the fact that Obama didn't mention God enough.

Obama Doesn't Mention God Enough, Says Prayer Caucus

President Obama doesn't mention God frequently enough in his speeches, a group of religious House Republicans said in an open letter to the president, chastising him for skipping over mention of the "Creator," especially in a recent overseas address.

Forty-two members of the Congressional Prayer Caucus complained in a letter sent to the White House Monday that in a speech delivered last month in Indonesia, the president substituted the U.S.'s religious-themed national motto for a more secular alternative.

The letter suggests the speech was not an isolated incident but part of a series of remarks that "establishes a pattern" of the president intentionally excluding talk of God from his public remarks.

LINK

There are still six states that require a person to believe in either God or a Supreme Being in order to hold public office, and while these amendments are patently unconstitutional, they still exist in writing on their state constitutions. In Asheville, North Carolina, religious wackjobs tried to oust a city councilman for being an atheist based on that amendment, so it's not just an old law that people have forgotten. People actually try to enforce it.

Most historians, including myself, believe that there have been atheist presidents and congressmen, but they put on a good show of faking their religious beliefs in order to get elected. Some even claim that Obama is a secret atheist - which is fine by me. However, the fact that we live in a nation where one cannot openly express legitimate beliefs without being cast out of the political arena a) forces candidates to lie about something they shouldn't even have to discuss, b) ensures that only Protestant Christians have a voice in politics, and c) prevents diverse viewpoints from being debated on the floor of the Senate.

Personally, I think the Tea Party should be outlawed as treasonous, but that's just me -- and they're at the heart of much of this crap.

And let us not forget that Ariticle IV, paragraph 3 of the United States Constitution says, "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

Of course, a vast number of Americans have never read the Constitution and have no idea what's in it. Therefore, they still think a religious test for high office is appropriate. You'd be surprised at the number of Americans who still think God is mentioned in the US constitution. He isn't ...at least not in the way they think. God is only mentioned in the signatory section where it says, "Signed in the year of our Lord, 1787."

by JP Cusick Sat Oct 26, 2013 9:41 pm

Norm Deplume wrote:
JP Cusick wrote: Science is inadequate for that comparison, as science is inadequate for many things.

As Einstein said = Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.

You trying to push everything under the guise of science just makes your self as both lame and as blind.

The seeing of the image-of-God in the stardust is an empirical view where a person must use our own eyes and senses in order to see it.

You were the one who made the comparison, but could find nothing except your own conviction to support it. By now asserting that science is inadequate for the comparison, you are now implicitly distancing yourself from your earlier post. I think that is very sensible of you. It is clear to me, moreover, that religion is inadequate for most things relying as it does on imagination and fantasy over verifiable fact.

"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

The only part that applied to science was that we are all made from stardust, as in the product of exploding supernovas, and that still stands as accurate and true.

What I did was make to accurately make the comparison between that scientific knowledge and some religious understanding.

You have not dismissed any evidence or anything as you have avoided the point and say nothing regarding the actual point.

Just FYI.

thumbsdown

by stuart torr Sat Oct 26, 2013 9:58 pm

JP as an ex nurse who has worked in operating theatres, I can tell you without any doubt whatsoever, that there is no human being made from stardust. So please stop saying that stupid rubbish ok. Twisted Evil

by snowyflake Sun Oct 27, 2013 9:02 am

Actually, stu, we are made of stardust. All the elements in the known universe are the result of fusion in exploding stars. Every element that is in you was once in a star. What JP has done has extrapolated that knowledge to mean that God created us. It's just a giant leap of faith and typical of religious nutters. Because something is a scientific fact does not mean that therefore God had a hand in it.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sun Oct 27, 2013 11:22 am

JP Cusick wrote:
Norm Deplume wrote:
JP Cusick wrote:

" We are all made of stardust. It sounds like a line from a poem, but there is some solid science behind this statement too: almost every element on Earth was formed at the heart of a star. "

I myself believe this to be accurate and true, so science is on my side, and it is just another way of saying that we are all made in the image of God.

I dare anyone to give a link where science says anything other then this?

You are the one making the claim that heavy elements forming in stars is equivalent to being made in the image of god, so it is incumbent upon you to provide the scientific evidence to support it. It is easy enough to cite peer-reviewed articles showing nuclear fusion producing metals under extreme conditions but it is less simple to find anything tying a hypothetical deity into the process. Without that your speculation is worthless.
Science is inadequate for that comparison, as science is inadequate for many things.

As Einstein said = Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.

You trying to push everything under the guise of science just makes your self as both lame and as blind.

The seeing of the image-of-God in the stardust is an empirical view where a person must use our own eyes and senses in order to see it.

I see you are still determined to use semantics to violate the word empirical like a drag queen at a tractor pull.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sun Oct 27, 2013 11:24 am

snowyflake wrote:Actually, stu, we are made of stardust. All the elements in the known universe are the result of fusion in exploding stars. Every element that is in you was once in a star. What JP has done has extrapolated that knowledge to mean that God created us. It's just a giant leap of faith and typical of religious nutters. Because something is a scientific fact does not mean that therefore God had a hand in it.

It strikes me, like so many of his unevidenced claims, as a bit like a god of the gaps polemic. He goes to the point of our current scientific knowledge then inserts his god into the gap.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sun Oct 27, 2013 11:27 am

stu wrote: JP as an ex nurse who has worked in operating theatres, I can tell you without any doubt whatsoever, that there is no human being made from stardust. So please stop saying that stupid rubbish ok.

He's being disingenuous stu, what the article is pointing out is that all the elements that go to making our world, including us are derived from the chemical reaction in exploding stars. The nonsense about god he's just shoehorned in with no evidence whatsoever, just the voices in his head.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sun Oct 27, 2013 11:34 am

Shirina wrote:
JP Cusick wrote:As Einstein said = Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.
This is an example of the "argument from authority" fallacy.

Einstein is not a theologian and thus hardly qualified (any more than you and I) to give insights into God and religion. On this matter, his beliefs aren't any "more true" than the local pastor's, Kent Hovind's, or Pat Robertson's. Even geniuses can delude themselves. Einstein, of course, didn't believe in a personal god nor did he practice the rituals of any religion.

Unfortunately, however, people who aren't necessarily religious but who are in the public eye must often give lip service to religion in order to maintain credibility and popular support. Religion is like that -- irrational, overly sensitive, and quick to anger. That's why you have fundamentalist Muslims calling for the beheading of a teacher who merely named a teddybear "Muhammad" and why atheists are the least trusted demographic group in America -- even less than gays and Muslims.

I've encountered this many times, a poster on another site using this very polemic, The discussion turned somehow to Isaac Newton, and I pointed out that whilst his genius as the founding father of Physics was accepted precisely because his research had stood up to scientific peer review, whereas his belief in alchemy and astrology had been discarded because they do not. The beliefs in the nonsense of alchemy and astrology do not in any way detract from a scientific genius, any more than his genius adds veracity to those beliefs. He was, like all men and women, a prisoner of the times in which he lived. His genius is undiminished by this.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sun Oct 27, 2013 11:44 am

JP Cusick wrote:The seeing of the image-of-God in the stardust is an empirical view where a person must use our own eyes and senses in order to see it.
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:Nonsense, it's your own opinion, and it's pure fanatsy, or else you could prove it. I look forward to you getting your claims published in a scientific journal worthy of note.
The only part that applied to science was that we are all made from stardust, as in the product of exploding supernovas, and that still stands as accurate and true. What I did was make to accurately make the comparison between that scientific knowledge and some religious understanding.
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:What you did was try to shoehorn your own superstitious beliefs into a scientific fact, where it has no part, it's laughable to suggest that your claims are anything more than fantasy, and again I look forward to you getting the same level of proof for your claim as the scientific fact you are desperately trying to pin it to in a laughable attempt to lend it some credibility. If it's valid why use an unrelated scientific fact? Why not publish your evidence you claim you have and let your claim stand or fall as all claims should based on scientific peer review?

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sun Oct 27, 2013 11:46 am

Shirina wrote:
JP Cusick wrote:I dare anyone to give a link where science says anything other then this?
I dare anyone to give a link where any reputable and relevant scientist claimed that being made from star dust is the same as being created by a God.

Seconded, and I have posted the same invitation above. So JP Cusick, again it's "put up or shut up".

by stuart torr Sun Oct 27, 2013 12:20 pm

The earth etc might contain stardust everyone who states it, but human beings do not contain any ok

by snowyflake Sun Oct 27, 2013 12:40 pm

Hi stu

The elements that make up you were formed in the stars. Everyone of us, everything in the universe originated in the stars. If the stars had never existed, we would not exist either because the heat and gravity needed to fuse elements can only be created in exploding stars. Smile

It's a beautiful concept, in my opinion, but it doesn't convince me or any sane person that god had anything to do with it. It's a natural process stemming from the Big Bang Smile

Hope you are well.

by Sponsored content