Atheism versus God

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.
 

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.

Heretic wrote:

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

Speak for yourself!

Bellatori, upper classes are upper classes and that includes royalty in my book anyway.

Why do we keep getting these reminders, they are doing my free will in, and it doesn't even exist.

You mean the old emails Tosh? I know get on your tits after a bit dont they.  

Not sure but I think the 'Stop Watching This Topic' link stops the email reminders. Of which you'll just have received another one Admin would be able to confirm this

First topic message reminder :

I demand to know who is behind this reminder, is it a ghost...................SHIRINA !!

Evidence at last....only kidding.....no harm no foul, put the axe down.

True Dan, depends on how many threads/posts you are tracking/watching so to speak and they send you only one but by the time you get to it they may be three or more posts

I keep forgetting to uncheck the 'send reminder' box...

Bellatori wrote:I keep forgetting to uncheck the 'send reminder' box...

You should set some sort of reminder so as not to forget.

 Yeah Dan but he will need a reminder to check the reminder then though would he not.  

Tosh wrote:I demand to know who is behind this reminder, is it a ghost...................SHIRINA !!

I went into your profile and checked the "send email notification for all topics" box. Muahahahaha!

No, not really. I had the same problem with the email notifications flooding my inbox. I would tell your email to automatically send those to your spam folder so they stay out of your inbox. Otherwise, you'll have to remember to uncheck the email notification box for every new thread you post in.

I would tell your email to automatically send those to your spam folder so they stay out of your inbox.

Would you do this on my behalf, my mind is beginning to deteriorate.

Heehee, I can't log into your email and change your settings. My admin abilities don't extend that far.  

Bellatori wrote:Speak for yourself!

I can, I will, I dare, I do.

Heretic

I take it Heretic, that you have no abiding love of the queen?

stu wrote:I take it Heretic, that you have no abiding love of the queen?

I resent her wealth, power and influence. Having said that she works really hard for it. How many of us would like to be forced to continue working until they were 87 and still counting?

Heretic

 suppose the old bag earns it.   

Heretic wrote:

stu wrote:I take it Heretic, that you have no abiding love of the queen?

I resent her wealth, power and influence. Having said that she works really hard for it. How many of us would like to be forced to continue working until they were 87 and still counting?

Heretic

Really? Does she?... You see it hyped up by the royal loving press but truly is it that stressful? I volunteer to be looked after, waited on hand and foot and carry out good works for 200 days a year. Beat the hell out of sitting at home alone in a cold house I reckon (I don't but many do...).

There is a strong correlation between income and life expectancy...

Heretic wrote:
How many of us would like to be forced to continue working until they were 87 and still counting?

Heretic

I don't think "forced" is the appropriate word. Abdication is not impossible - the Dutch royal family hand over the position before they reach that sort of age, for instance. If life were that difficult our queen could have done the same. Mind you our choice of head of state would then be

1. the Prince of Wales
   
2. the Duke of Cornwall
   
3. Baron Renfrew
   
4. Speaker to Plants
   

Place your bets now.

Not seen Mr JP Cusick around for a few days. Anyone know where he is?

Heretic

Heretic wrote:

stu wrote:I take it Heretic, that you have no abiding love of the queen?

I resent her wealth, power and influence. Having said that she works really hard for it. How many of us would like to be forced to continue working until they were 87 and still counting?

Heretic

I agree, but I'm not sure she is being forced, is she? She could abdicate after all. Which is more than most people can do from their work. I'd abdicate from mine tomorrow if I had the means to live without it.

Anyway back to our omniscient God, Genesis 3:8-9:

8They heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden. 9Then the LORD God called to the man, and said to him, "Where are you?"

Now this omniscient deity knows the exact position of every sub atomic particle throughout the entire universe, but he doesn't know where Adam is hiding?

mmmm.

Tosh wrote:Anyway back to our omniscient God, Genesis 3:8-9:

8They heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden. 9Then the LORD God called to the man, and said to him, "Where are you?"

Now this omniscient deity knows the exact position of every sub atomic particle throughout the entire universe, but he doesn't know where Adam is hiding?

mmmm.

Indeed, an omniscient being that doesn't know something, how theists love their illogical paradoxes.

No Heretic, only thinking the same thing yesterday mate very quiet.  

Heretic wrote:Not seen Mr JP Cusick around for a few days. Anyone know where he is?

Heretic

Missionary work?

Tosh wrote:Now this omniscient deity knows the exact position of every sub atomic particle throughout the entire universe, but he doesn't know where Adam is hiding?

LOL! Don't forget that God also asked Cain where his brother was ... hehe. That's when Cain snapped at God and said, "Am I my brother's keeper?"

Somehow God became more omniscient as time went on.

Let us just get the matter of antimatter in perspective.

If I see an oak table and wish to find it's origin, I sart with the polisher and work backwards, I end up with the oak tree and the acorn.

Thhere is no rational explanation for the acorn other than a creator.

You take antimatter and matter, equal amounts of each when put together cancel each other out.

If the universe is composed of an equal amount of each and they became together then the result would be the origin of both.

The result of even a small quantity of both is the origin of both.

Saying something is logical does not constitute proof that it is.

It does if you actually understand logic.

polyglide wrote:It does if you actually understand logic.

That defies logic.

polyglide wrote:... You take antimatter and matter, equal amounts of each when put together cancel each other out. If the universe is composed of an equal amount of each and they became together then the result would be the origin of both. The result of even a small quantity of both is the origin of both.

Please read this again carefully and see if you can put it in a way that I can understand. As of now I find this to be completely incomprehensible.

Bellatori,

I have never met a creationist yet whose brain functions normally, polyglide is trying to put forward Kalam's cosmological argument, but doesn't understand it enough to do so in a manner a sane person can comprehend.

Think of polyglide spinning round the room like a demented dalek, screaming " something from nothing " " Exterminate " " Exterminate ".

JP HIDING OUT THE WAY. we will exterminate.

stu wrote:JP  HIDING OUT THE WAY. we will exterminate.

He's taken up a missionary position.  

We will still exterminate,exterminate. 

polyglide wrote:Let us just get the matter of antimatter in perspective.

If I see an oak table and wish to find it's origin, I sart with the  polisher and work backwards, I  end up with  the oak tree and the acorn.

There is no rational explanation for the acorn other than a creator.

What about another oak tree? That grew from another acorn, which came from another oak. Once you have traced it back 2000 years it ceases to be meaningful in the polyglideverse because nothing is relevant before the birth of Jesus.

polyglide wrote:
You take antimatter and matter, equal amounts of each when put together cancel each other out.

No, that is not very accurate. Cancelling would imply that nothing remains at all. What is produced is energy, lots of it. To calculate how much multiply the combined mass by the square of the speed of light in vacuum.

Expressed as a formula:  E = mc²

Of course, if you think that a matter/antimatter reaction results in nothing then reversing the process by converting energy to mass produces 'something from nothing'.

polyglide wrote:

If the universe is composed of an equal amount of each and they became together then the result would be the origin of both.

The result of even a small quantity of both is the origin of both.

What do you mean by 'origin' here? It is not a sense of the word that I have ever seen before.

Norm, you do realise you are discussing entropy with a man with a bone through his nose, if you nodded off he would probably eat you.

These people drive me insane, let me get my eugenics list out.

 Well Tosh eat away? Got your eugenics list out yet? Don't hang around then, sooner it's done the better.   

stu wrote:We will still exterminate,exterminate. 

I think a better quote is

Cyber Leader: Daleks, be warned. You have declared war upon the Cybermen.
Dalek Sec: This is not war - this is pest control!

Heretic

Well Heretic now we know what the p stands for in JP.