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 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 Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sun Oct 27, 2013 12:44 pm

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

Not literally ground up dust no, but the claim was being disingenuously presented by JP Cusick to imply that. I notice he has now turned away from that with a qualification closer to the truth, so it may have been more a case of clumsy posting than outright mendacity. All the elements that go to make up humans are derivatives of stars though, made when they explode and scatter the debris throughout the universe.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sun Oct 27, 2013 12:48 pm

JP Cusick wrote: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.

Why bother presenting a repetition of that straw man argument when it's been utterly refuted? An atheist cannot be against god, that's an oxymoron, as has been explained to you more than once, so by repeating it you're coming across as dishonest. You've also been told that your English is execrable here, and the term self righteous is being used in entirely the wrong context. What you declare is irrelevant, you might declare yourself a genius, your garden to contain fairies, the sea mermaids, and the forests unicorns, prove it or don't waste our time. FYI Rolling Eyes

For the record atheism makes no claims, it simply rejects one that is entirely unevidenced, it's that lack of evidence that is the only motive as well, so you can stop repeating the lie that it's motives lay elsewhere. You're not an atheists so don't absurdly try to tell atheists what they think or what motivates them, as unlike theists we don't have scripture, dogma, and organised religion to tell us what we think. . So trying to mendaciously paint it as negative is as you have been repeatedly told just your own personal fantasy.

by stuart torr Sun Oct 27, 2013 12:55 pm

I am well my luv hope you are too, enjoying this site also. Through evolution the elements that originally made us up have surely changed gradually, and therefore the original make-up does not exist now.

by Heretic Sun Oct 27, 2013 7:06 pm

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote: I notice he has now turned away from that with a qualification closer to the truth, so it may have been more a case of clumsy posting than outright mendacity. All the elements that go to make up humans are derivatives of stars though, made when they explode and scatter the debris throughout the universe.

I wonder if this is a methodology that he uses to actually learn the truth about something.

1. Make an outrageous statement
2. See how many people attack it (if none then it must be the truth)
3. force those that attack (1.) to justify themselves in excruciating detail
4. Then move slightly from initial position (1.) to see how much difference it makes (and was change in right direction).

I could see this making a nice little flowchart but am not prepared to draw it with the tools I have available here. I'm also wondering if Mr JP Cusick could be consistant enough to draw any benefit from such a strategy.

Heretic

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sun Oct 27, 2013 7:08 pm

Heretic wrote:
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote: I notice he has now turned away from that with a qualification closer to the truth, so it may have been more a case of clumsy posting than outright mendacity. All the elements that go to make up humans are derivatives of stars though, made when they explode and scatter the debris throughout the universe.
I wonder if this is a methodology that he uses to actually learn the truth about something.

1. Make an outrageous statement
2. See how many people attack it (if none then it must be the truth)
3. force those that attack (1.) to justify themselves in excruciating detail
4. Then move slightly from initial position (1.) to see how much difference it makes (and was change in right direction).

I could see this making a nice little flowchart but am not prepared to draw it with the tools I have available here. I'm also wondering if Mr JP Cusick could be consistant enough to draw any benefit from such a strategy.

Heretic

There is some evidence to validate that, but I think he just realises he's backed himself into a corner every once in a while. or he was trolling and has "sprung his trap".

by Heretic Sun Oct 27, 2013 7:21 pm

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:There is some evidence to validate that, but I think he just realises he's backed himself into a corner every once in a while. or he was trolling and has "sprung his trap".

I would like to have him say something that he say's "this is what I believe" and for him then to have a rational debate the validity of that statement. I know it is a strength to be able to change your mind but that is as a result of new data that one finds convincing and not, as it seems to the case with Mr Cusick, as a consequence of which way the wind is blowing.

I will supply the obvious quote in case it is unknown to some.

John 3:8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.(King James Version)

Heretic

by Shirina Sun Oct 27, 2013 8:21 pm

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:An atheist cannot be against god, that's an oxymoron, as has been explained to you more than once, so by repeating it you're coming across as dishonest.

Weeelllll ..... that's not entirely accurate.

I suppose one could accuse me of being "against" God ... but that does require a fair amount of clarification. Christians will often try, erroneously, to claim that being "against" God means I believe in God. Of course, that's ridiculous. I don't believe that God exists, BUT, God's influence is felt all over the place. Even a fictitious God can dictate the beliefs and actions of a great many people. In addition, as every atheist knows, God is not exactly the kind of stand-up guy that deserves worship; if my daughter somehow began dating God, I would be extremely angry with her. No daughter of mine is going to date a mass murderer and genocidal megalomaniac!

Unfortunately, belief in God isn't just a quiet academic paradigm that goes on inside of a believer's head. It governs their actions, real actions with real consequences. This is why there will never be an openly non-Christian president, why there are state consititutional amendments banning gay marriage, why there is a constant battle over Intelligent Design being taught in our classrooms, why there is a push against contraception -- especially for the young, why prostitution is still illegal, why homosexual acts were illegal for over 200 years in the US, why there have been over 600 attempts in a single year to curtail abortion, and why religious politicians on the lunatic fringe are suddenly creeping their way toward real power.

This God, fictional or not, has really made a mess of things, and thusly, being "against God" is a sort of catch-all for the massive laundry list of stupidity that belief in this God has caused. For instance:

**Religion's obsession with sex rather than with real crimes that truly harm
**Fascistic practices such as banning - and in some cases even burning - books
**Placing the Bible above the US Constitution in determining the validity of various laws
**Using the Bible as a weapon to persecute homosexuals
**Refusing to understand the Law of Unintended Consequences - such as when religion gave birth to the Mob and organized crime by lobbying to have alcohol consumption made illegal
**Being more concerned with following Hebrew laws from the Old Testament than actually adhering to the teachings of Jesus
**the rise of "dominionism" which believes that the US Constitution should be re-written to be more in line with the Bible (i.e. the Old Testament)
**The shameless and disgusting wholesale brainwashing of children in so-called "Jesus Camps." (I say "so-called" because, again, these camps are all about the Old Testament, NOT about Jesus)
**Religion being way too involved in politics, churches flagrantly ignoring laws that are supposed to prevent them from influencing elections, AND the fact that churches pay no taxes.
**The constant fight of the Christian evangelicals to try and legislate morality
**The more God-belief grows, the more insane religious leaders become - such as the politician from Arkansas who said we should be allowed to murder our unruly children as per Deuteronomy.
**Christian pharmacists who refuse to fill legitimate prescriptions for birth control - even when the medicine is being used for some other medical purpose
**Advocating a national policy that would a) illegalize abortion, b) cut or eliminate funding for children living in poverty, and c) substantially limit access to birth control
**Pushing for a new age of imperialism by having the American military forcefully spread a thinly veiled Christian theocracy in nations that are predominately Muslim
**The extremely aggressive tactics evangelicals use to convert American soldiers to hard-core Christianity - for the up and coming war against Islam
**The killing of children by refusing to get easily treated conditions cured by a doctor - because their religion forbids the use of modern medicine. Only prayer is allowed.
**The non-stop, "in your face" visibility of religion - from massive billboards to placards nailed to poles with Bible verses written on them ... to big white crosses all up and down I-79, I-90, and I-40 to even Reverend Camping who spent millions of dollars to litter the nation with "end of the world" announcements
**The flagrant hypocrisy of Christians getting all pissed off and angry when atheists put up their own billboards and signs.
**The simple embarrassment of living in a nation so far behind everyone else academically; a nation of which 40% of its inhabitants believe that a supreme being magically created humans from a pile of dirt and a rib instead of believing in evolution
**And the simple embarrassment of knowing that Young Earth Creationism is largely an American phenomenon because no other nation is stupid enough to believe that garbage
**Christians trying to repeal anti-bullying laws in our schools because they want to be legally allowed to bully kids as long as they do it for religious reasons.
**The previous Pope telling all 49,000 American nuns that they're spending too much time helping the poor and not enough time condemning homosexuality (while priests continue to molest little boys)
**Religious wackjobs trying to prevent stem cell research because that would be "playing God"

And on ... and on ad infinitum.

While it might be more accurate to say I am against a belief in God, that's not really it. I'm against God ... their God. Their specific God. What they worship is a 3,000 year-old Hebrew barbarian and butcher, a primitive murderer that causes a lot of people (such as JP Cusick) to have an exceedingly warped view of morality. The fact that the Christian-Hebrew God behaves in this fashion proves beyond doubt that Yahweh is a made-up storybook character. Why? Because ALL of the "alpha gods" acted like that. ALL of the creator gods are essentially the same.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sun Oct 27, 2013 9:01 pm

Shirina wrote:
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:An atheist cannot be against god, that's an oxymoron, as has been explained to you more than once, so by repeating it you're coming across as dishonest.
Weeelllll ..... that's not entirely accurate.

I suppose one could accuse me of being "against" God ... but that does require a fair amount of clarification. Christians will often try, erroneously, to claim that being "against" God means I believe in God. Of course, that's ridiculous. I don't believe that God exists, BUT, God's influence is felt all over the place. Even a fictitious God can dictate the beliefs and actions of a great many people. In addition, as every atheist knows, God is not exactly the kind of stand-up guy that deserves worship; if my daughter somehow began dating God, I would be extremely angry with her. No daughter of mine is going to date a mass murderer and genocidal megalomaniac!
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:Isn't that more accurately a hatred of religion? As what you're objecting to is the hypothetical idea of a god that has a b and c characteristics.
Unfortunately, belief in God isn't just a quiet academic paradigm that goes on inside of a believer's head. It governs their actions, real actions with real consequences. This is why there will never be an openly non-Christian president, why there are state consititutional amendments banning gay marriage, why there is a constant battle over Intelligent Design being taught in our classrooms, why there is a push against contraception -- especially for the young, why prostitution is still illegal, why homosexual acts were illegal for over 200 years in the US, why there have been over 600 attempts in a single year to curtail abortion, and why religious politicians on the lunatic fringe are suddenly creeping their way toward real power.
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:Of course all true and very worrying, but I don't see that meaning any atheists who object to any of that is against god, as opposed to being against religion, or am I missing the point?
This God, fictional or not, has really made a mess of things, and thusly, being "against God" is a sort of catch-all for the massive laundry list of stupidity that belief in this God has caused. For instance:

**Religion's obsession with sex rather than with real crimes that truly harm
**Fascistic practices such as banning - and in some cases even burning - books
**Placing the Bible above the US Constitution in determining the validity of various laws
**Using the Bible as a weapon to persecute homosexuals
**Refusing to understand the Law of Unintended Consequences - such as when religion gave birth to the Mob and organized crime by lobbying to have alcohol consumption made illegal
**Being more concerned with following Hebrew laws from the Old Testament than actually adhering to the teachings of Jesus
**the rise of "dominionism" which believes that the US Constitution should be re-written to be more in line with the Bible (i.e. the Old Testament)
**The shameless and disgusting wholesale brainwashing of children in so-called "Jesus Camps." (I say "so-called" because, again, these camps are all about the Old Testament, NOT about Jesus)
**Religion being way too involved in politics, churches flagrantly ignoring laws that are supposed to prevent them from influencing elections, AND the fact that churches pay no taxes.
**The constant fight of the Christian evangelicals to try and legislate morality
**The more God-belief grows, the more insane religious leaders become - such as the politician from Arkansas who said we should be allowed to murder our unruly children as per Deuteronomy.
**Christian pharmacists who refuse to fill legitimate prescriptions for birth control - even when the medicine is being used for some other medical purpose
**Advocating a national policy that would a) illegalize abortion, b) cut or eliminate funding for children living in poverty, and c) substantially limit access to birth control
**Pushing for a new age of imperialism by having the American military forcefully spread a thinly veiled Christian theocracy in nations that are predominately Muslim
**The extremely aggressive tactics evangelicals use to convert American soldiers to hard-core Christianity - for the up and coming war against Islam
**The killing of children by refusing to get easily treated conditions cured by a doctor - because their religion forbids the use of modern medicine. Only prayer is allowed.
**The non-stop, "in your face" visibility of religion - from massive billboards to placards nailed to poles with Bible verses written on them ... to big white crosses all up and down I-79, I-90, and I-40 to even Reverend Camping who spent millions of dollars to litter the nation with "end of the world" announcements
**The flagrant hypocrisy of Christians getting all pissed off and angry when atheists put up their own billboards and signs.
**The simple embarrassment of living in a nation so far behind everyone else academically; a nation of which 40% of its inhabitants believe that a supreme being magically created humans from a pile of dirt and a rib instead of believing in evolution
**And the simple embarrassment of knowing that Young Earth Creationism is largely an American phenomenon because no other nation is stupid enough to believe that garbage
**Christians trying to repeal anti-bullying laws in our schools because they want to be legally allowed to bully kids as long as they do it for religious reasons.
**The previous Pope telling all 49,000 American nuns that they're spending too much time helping the poor and not enough time condemning homosexuality (while priests continue to molest little boys)
**Religious wackjobs trying to prevent stem cell research because that would be "playing God"

And on ... and on ad infinitum.

While it might be more accurate to say I am against a belief in God, that's not really it. I'm against God ... their God.
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:I'm not really seeing the distinction, as their beliefs and religion is a tangible thing as you've said, that I can either see as innocuous, or as is the case with the actions you've listed above vehemently despise, but since I don't see any evidence the god they believe in exists, I can only hate the idea of it really, as it subjugates us, and reduces us to errant children, instead of taking absolute responsibility for own actions, and their consequences.
Their specific God. What they worship is a 3,000 year-old Hebrew barbarian and butcher, a primitive murderer that causes a lot of people (such as JP Cusick) to have an exceedingly warped view of morality. The fact that the Christian-Hebrew God behaves in this fashion proves beyond doubt that Yahweh is a made-up storybook character. Why? Because ALL of the "alpha gods" acted like that. ALL of the creator gods are essentially the same.

It's not wasted on the average atheist, and certainly not on me, that people create gods in their own image. If the theist is a bright tolerant well educated person then they'll try as much as possible to create a god with the same characteristics. Whereas a theist who is a hateful, misogynistic, racist bully, will create a god with just those characteristics. The problem is that theists whatever their characteristics are shackled to dogma, even theists like JP who rather bizarrely claims to be a non-conforming theist who thinks for himself, when he clearly does no such thing.

by Heretic Sun Oct 27, 2013 9:55 pm

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:It's not wasted on the average atheist, and certainly not on me, that people create gods in their own image. If the theist is a bright tolerant well educated person then they'll try as much as possible to create a god with the same characteristics. Whereas a theist who is a hateful, misogynistic, racist bully, will create a god with just those characteristics. The problem is that theists whatever their characteristics are shackled to dogma, even theists like JP who rather bizarrely claims to be a non-conforming theist who thinks for himself, when he clearly does no such thing.

If this is true then people may indeed get the gods that they deserve and if that was as far as it went then there be little protest about that but that is not as far as it goes. That little god that they create is then used as justification for every little thing in their lives and depending a great deal on the individuals charisma may attempt to impose those views on all those around them.

I think the idea of a meme is quite well known but for those that don't know the description in wikipedia is adequate Meme.

Heretic

by stuart torr Mon Oct 28, 2013 1:28 pm

So after all that!! I will state categorically that at this moment in time, if I were to go to my surgeon again he would not find one flake,drop,spot of bloody stardust.

by polyglide Mon Oct 28, 2013 2:30 pm

The whole point being where did that which went BANG come from.

Everything we know is made from atoms, atoms can be split, anything that can be split must have been put together in the first place.

Who put the atoms together?

There are too many examples of interdependancies on earth to prove that intelligence of some kind was involved in life on earth.

We were not intended to know all the answers nor delve into the ancient past, had man done what he was created for he would now be enjoying a far better life than he presently is.

by Dan Fante Mon Oct 28, 2013 3:02 pm

It's a bit cake and eat, isn't it? Using science to try and prove God and then using the questions which science cannot answer as more proof of God? It's almost like you'll take absolutely anything, irrespective of the context and use it to try and prove the existence of God.

by Norm Deplume Mon Oct 28, 2013 4:04 pm

polyglide wrote:
Everything we know is made from atoms, atoms can be split, anything that can be split must have been put together in the first place.

What sort of atoms are photons made from? Or is energy something we know of that is not made of atoms?

polyglide wrote:Who put the atoms together?

Natural forces. The universe is not a branch of Ikea.

polyglide wrote:There are too many examples of interdependancies on earth to prove that intelligence of some kind was involved in life on earth.

This is entirely wrong. There is nowhere near enough evidence to suggest, let alone prove, that intelligence is required for species to evolve.

polyglide wrote:We were not intended to know all the answers nor delve into the ancient past, had man done what he was created for he would now be enjoying a far better life than he presently is.

Leaving aside the silly idea that Homo sapiens was 'created', I agree that dwelling too much on the past holds us back. Discarding primitive religious beliefs would be a big leap forward.

by Bellatori Mon Oct 28, 2013 4:05 pm

polyglide wrote:The whole point being where did that which went BANG come from.

You have two possibilities...

1. God did his thing and created the universe. So we could represent that as God->Universe
2. The universe created itself. We could represent this as Universe->Universe

Of the two components mentioned there is only one for which we have definite evidence and that is the Universe. Do we have any tangible if circumstantial evidence for either process? A really good evidential miracle might do for the first process but sadly miracles seem to be a thing of the past. One poster on another site always used to point to 'The Miracle at Fatima' as an example but sadly it is a real event that has a real explanation.
What about the second process? We certainly have evidence for the Universe. Do we have evidence for something coming from nothing? Actually yes we do. You might look here for some fun maths and then again here .

So of the two possible ideas for the creation of the universe we have the first one which requires some omnipotent creature for which we have no real evidence and again an unspecified mechanism and a second one which requires only things we know and some circumstantial evidence for the mechanism. Applying Occam's Razor the simplest and most likely correct one is the second.

polyglide wrote:We were not intended to know all the answers nor delve into the ancient past, had man done what he was created for he would now be enjoying a far better life than he presently is.

Firstly 'Says who?' and secondly I rather enjoy my life and I would point out that the pessimism that quote shows is hardly a poster pin up quote for religion. We are what we are without having to make excuses by/with/from some spuriously created Deity.

by Heretic Mon Oct 28, 2013 4:24 pm

polyglide wrote:, had man done what he was created for he would now be enjoying a far better life than he presently is.

I'm just wondering where your lack of desire for knowledge came from, perhaps it was predestined that you would have such a lack of desire to know the truth. I'm just wondering what someone, who from his own words thinks that we should not be interested in truth, then goes on to declare what he thinks of as one of the highest truths.

Now "PolyGlide", I am sure you have an interest in truth and that is one of the things that defines you as a person and yet you appear to be telling us not to bother ourselves with it , that somehow or for some reason we are not meant to know. Can you not see that the desire that led you to what you declare to be the truth is the self-same desire that leads us to very different conclusions. The only way to discover which truth is most likely to be correct is by debate, it is certainly not to declare "We were not intended to know all the answers nor delve into the ancient past".

If you think our desire for truth is somehow a different kind to the desire that you have for the truth then please explain why?

Heretic

by stuart torr Mon Oct 28, 2013 4:38 pm

We would not come on forums such as these and ask questions you want answers for and then you choose the most scientifically proven true answer to solve your question from the answers given. Part of the fun of that is getting other peoples views without falling out over the answers given or arguing and name calling each other because someones answer does not fit in with your dogma.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Mon Oct 28, 2013 6:27 pm

polyglide wrote:The whole point being where did that which went BANG come from.
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:A very good question, but until we know we can assume nothing.
Everything we know is made from atoms, atoms can be split, anything that can be split must have been put together in the first place.
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:Your sentence implies a creator, with no evidence other than an assumtpion based on a gap in our knowledge. It;s also a subjective assumption, since as a theist your trying to presuppose the answer to fit what you already believe.
Who put the atoms together?

There are too many examples of interdependancies on earth to prove that intelligence of some kind was involved in life on earth.
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:Another wild assumption, extreme complexity can emerge from random events given enough time and repetition, this is a mathematical certainty. As a hypothetical example, If a dice is rolled randomly it will eventually produce extremely complex ordered sequences of numbers. Please don't ask who's rolling the dice as that is entirely missing the point.
We were not intended to know all the answers nor delve into the ancient past,
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:I'm sorry but that's just another wild assumption.
had man done what he was created for he would now be enjoying a far better life than he presently is.

Well you end with yet another assumption, and one that betrays that you are trying to fit the evidence around your preconceived beliefs, that's pointless as all you'll do is confirm what you already believe, try questioning it objectively, and I guarantee it will very quickly start to unravel.

by Shirina Tue Oct 29, 2013 4:32 am

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:An atheist cannot be against god, that's an oxymoron, as has been explained to you more than once, so by repeating it you're coming across as dishonest.

As articulate as I try to be, English is still my second language (Bengali is my first). Because of that, there are occasions when I run up against an idea that somehow gets lost in translation, so to speak. In other words, the idea is too complicated or too abstract for me to adequately put it into words. I've wrestled with trying to make my meaning more clear, but it just isn't working.

I do think that a person can be against something, even if that "something" doesn't exist. God, whether he exists or not, influences tens of millions of people in this country to make stupendously bad decisions. Because of that, I am against God -- or perhaps more accurately, the concept of God. I don't see that as an oxymoron since opposition to something is not an admission that this "something" exists. What matters is whether that "something" has real world implications, influence, and power. It would be silly, for instance, to be against fairies as fairies do not have any influence on, say, politics, social behavior, morality, etc. Whether fairies actually exist or not is irrelevant.

With God, many people believe he does exist, and that belief is what causes so much strife. Doesn't that mean I'm against their belief rather than being against God? I suppose so, but their belief hinges upon the existence of God -- thus merely being against a belief in God is akin to treating the symptom rather than the disease.

And I'm still not satisfied with my attempt to make my meaning more clear so I'm just going to let this go for now.

by Shirina Tue Oct 29, 2013 4:37 am

stu wrote: if I were to go to my surgeon again he would not find one flake,drop,spot of bloody stardust.

Actually, your surgeon is likely to find traces of iron in your blood stream, something humans need to survive.

Iron is created in the cores of stars that are just about to die - the moment a star tries to burn iron, it's all over. The star either blows iron all over the place in a supernova or it balloons into a red giant, shedding iron as it cools.

Thus iron is, in effect, "star dust." Iron doesn't come from anywhere else.

by Heretic Tue Oct 29, 2013 7:04 am

stu wrote: if I were to go to my surgeon again he would not find one flake,drop,spot of bloody stardust.

I was about to suggest fairy dust but that implies something other than what what I mean so can I suggest Pixie dust?

Shirina wrote:Actually, your surgeon is likely to find traces of iron in your blood stream, something humans need to survive.

Iron is created in the cores of stars that are just about to die - the moment a star tries to burn iron, it's all over. The star either blows iron all over the place in a supernova or it balloons into a red giant, shedding iron as it cools.

Thus iron is, in effect, "star dust." Iron doesn't come from anywhere else.

Iron doesn't sound like the stuff of stars (although Sharina is absolutely correct) and I might of suggested quicksilver (mercury) as it seems mysterious in the way it behaves[rather like the full stop I just spent five minutes trying to remove from this sentence before rubbing it off the screen with a damp cloth]. To think that most of the universe is still hydrogen and helium and will take billions of years before most of it becomes the stuff we take for granted and without which life would just not be possible. Who needs a god when there is so much in the natural world to wonder at. When I look at photographs of galaxies they look just so incredible and our physicists seem to be seeing a reflection of these images when they look at images from CERN of the incredibly small.
Atheism versus God - Page 6 Arewealoneintheuniverse

Atheism versus God - Page 6 Arewealoneintheuniverse

Could it be be just familiarity that stops us seeing wonderful things on the surface of this planet.

You want to see a world of wonder? Look in the eyes of your partner and you will see things that N.A.S.A. and C.E.R.N. cannot even imagine, value what you see and remember it for all time because you do not know when it will be snatched away from you.

Heretic

by stuart torr Tue Oct 29, 2013 10:56 am

I note the sorrow in your words Heretic, and I am sorry for that loss that must still seem so recent. bless you.

by polyglide Tue Oct 29, 2013 2:55 pm

The only way in which anything can come from nothing is if there is anti matter.

Even were there to be anti matter there would still have to be something using it to form anything.

by Norm Deplume Tue Oct 29, 2013 3:00 pm

polyglide wrote:The only way in which anything can come from nothing is if there is anti matter.

Even were there to be anti matter there would still have to be something using it to form anything.

You don't know what anti-matter is, do you?

by polyglide Tue Oct 29, 2013 3:03 pm

Shirina, everything must come from somewhere and iron is just one of many components regarding almost all aspects of both animal life and all other things that exist.

You could make a similar case for many things all of which would be as unsound as this one regarding iron.

I would recommend the old Dandy and Beano as a change from the other commics you must g ain your ideas from.

regards.

by polyglide Tue Oct 29, 2013 3:22 pm

Anti matter is what it says and the only evidence so far both in science and in nature is antihelium and that is not a possible reason for getting something from nothing.

by stuart torr Tue Oct 29, 2013 3:23 pm

polyglide now there really is no need for that is there, so an apology to Shirina would not go amiss. It is really far better what the lady says than a fictional god that has more proof against than for is it not.

by Norm Deplume Tue Oct 29, 2013 3:57 pm

polyglide wrote:The only way in which anything can come from nothing is if there is anti matter.

Even were there to be anti matter there would still have to be something using it to form anything.

polyglide wrote:Anti matter is what it says and the only evidence so far both in science and in nature is antihelium and that is not a possible reason for getting something from nothing.

You are really mixed up. First you say that something can come from nothing if anti-matter exists. Then you say it does not exist. The you say it does exist (in the form of antihelium though antihydrogen has also been manufactured). Then you contradict your first assertion by saying that the existence of anti-matter does not mean that something can come from nothing.

You have done nothing to explain what your argument is other than bald assertion. Try again and show your reasoning.

I could say that "nothing can happen unless the Invisible Pink Unicorn exists" and it woyld be just as meaningful and well-supported as your claim. (Incidentally, before you ask, the Invisible Pink Unicorn is what it says. See how helpful that is?)

by Tosh Tue Oct 29, 2013 4:01 pm

I would like to see some evidence that a state of nothingness has ever existed anywhere, if one wishes to use our universe as a model of what exists outside our universe then there is only something, there is no nothing.

by stuart torr Tue Oct 29, 2013 4:15 pm

That is when you say "if only" Tosh, if only star trek were for real right now, because that is when you can explore further afield in space and see it's wonders.

by Shirina Tue Oct 29, 2013 4:22 pm

polyglide wrote:You could make a similar case for many things all of which would be as unsound as this one regarding iron.

So where does iron come from then?

polyglide wrote:I would recommend the old Dandy and Beano as a change from the other commics you must g ain your ideas from.

I would recommend a science textbook as a change from the Bronze Age books about tribal gods you must gain your science from.

by stuart torr Tue Oct 29, 2013 5:43 pm

Good on yer Shirina, you stick up for yourself.

by Bellatori Tue Oct 29, 2013 5:51 pm

Shirina wrote:
polyglide wrote:You could make a similar case for many things all of which would be as unsound as this one regarding iron.
So where does iron come from then?

polyglide wrote:I would recommend the old Dandy and Beano as a change from the other commics you must g ain your ideas from.
I would recommend a science textbook as a change from the Bronze Age books about tribal gods you must gain your science from.

One of my favourite quotes comes from Oscar Wilde and fits Polly like a glove Very Happy

Lady Bracknell: I do not approve of anything that tampers with natural ignorance. Ignorance is like a delicate, exotic fruit. Touch it, and the bloom is gone. The whole theory of modern education is radically unsound. Fortunately in England, at any rate, education produces no effect whatsoever. If it did it would prove a serious threat to the upper classes, and probably lead ot acts of violence in Grosvenor Square.

by Heretic Tue Oct 29, 2013 6:09 pm

Lady Bracknell: I do not approve of anything that tampers with natural ignorance. Ignorance is like a delicate, exotic fruit. Touch it, and the bloom is gone. The whole theory of modern education is radically unsound. Fortunately in England, at any rate, education produces no effect whatsoever. If it did it would prove a serious threat to the upper classes, and probably lead ot acts of violence in Grosvenor Square.

It's funny how we hate the 'upper classes' yet have an abiding affection for the Queen.

Heretic

by Heretic Tue Oct 29, 2013 6:17 pm

stu wrote:I note the sorrow in your words Heretic, and I am sorry for that loss that must still seem so recent. bless you.

I suspect it will still seem recent for as long as I live, I appreciate your kind words but I move on as we all must in such circumstances.

Heretic

by Shirina Tue Oct 29, 2013 7:22 pm

stu wrote:Good on yer Shirina, you stick up for yourself.

I always do. pokenest

by snowyflake Tue Oct 29, 2013 7:30 pm

Tosh wrote:I would like to see some evidence that a state of nothingness has ever existed anywhere...

Have you ever been to Iowa? Smile

by stuart torr Tue Oct 29, 2013 7:40 pm

Some places near me fit the bill too. lol!

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Oct 29, 2013 11:37 pm

polyglide wrote:Shirina, everything must come from somewhere

I'm assuming you're premising that it game from God? In which case since everything must come from somewhere, where did god come from? Oh, and if the answer is you don't know, then how can you justify your claim to know everything else came from god instead of saying the truth, that you don't know where it came from?

by Shirina Wed Oct 30, 2013 1:13 am

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:Oh, and if the answer is you don't know, then how can you justify your claim to know everything else came from god instead of saying the truth, that you don't know where it came from?

I'm fairly certain I quoted the right person this time. headbang

You know what the answer will be ... if there is one. It will be the standard "special pleading" fallacy that says God is exempt from creation because he exists outside of space and time. I'm sure you know the drill.

by Tosh Wed Oct 30, 2013 8:37 am

Shirina, everything must come from somewhere

Everything in our universe has an efficient cause and a material cause( Aristotle), you cherry pick a conclusion that enables the existence of an efficient cause without a material cause, it is called top down thinking, and it is illogical.

If you wish to remain consistent you must keep both models and claim the efficient cause is God, and he made the universe out of existing material, but you can't because you started with a fixed conclusion, God created something from nothing.

You cannot juggle with logical principles and expect to get away with it, not on my watch, night in the box for you.

by Sponsored content