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.
 

Look in the mirror polyglide,then the person who needs help will be seen.

polyglide wrote:Then he is great

Cheers, mate  

Ok Dan mate, can't let the polyfilla.  win now can we.  

I wonder where JPC is by the way. I wonder if he met up with our dear friend Brad the Impaler via a chat room.

No idea Dan, haven't had his ramblings for a while now have we. why has CWB gone missing too?

CWB appears to be missing in action, aye.

Well I never would have thought it, old CWB NOT POSTING. I must take a look to see who is posting these days.take the pooch a walk and have a stroll over there i reckon, that might stir a few up.  

There is no evidence whatsoever that something can come from nothing.

So the universe cannot come from nothing because God came from nothing and created the universe from nothing?

NURSE...........he has not been taking his meds again.

Nice one Tosh.  

polyglide wrote:I could say that your comments are based not on your knowledge but on just quoting others.

Well duh! That is how we gain our knowledge. What a crappy world we would live in if every human had to figure out everything on his or her own. Every generation would be wrestling with how to light a fire instead of pondering string theory and the origin of life.

Besides, unless you're the inventor and founder of Christianity as well as the author of the Bible, you're just "quoting others" as well.

polyglide wrote:Ignorance is not recognising intelligence when  it is evident.

There is no evidence whatsoever that something can come from nothing.

I could quote all the latest scientific papers on the dark matter, the latest from the collider and everyone who has commented on the matter in question but that would neither prove nor disprove my understanding of the matter.

I could say that your comments are based not on your knowledge but on just quoting others.

You obviously do not recognise common sense nor have the ability to consider facts rather than fiction.

So you don't know where things come from.

Make the unproven assumption that nothing can come from nothing.

Then try to shoehorn into the gap in that knowledge a bronze age superstition about magic apples, talking snakes, pregnant virgins, a geocentric universe, created in 6 days, roughly when the ancient Sumerian's were inventing glue, etc etc..  

Then call anyone who disagrees with your thought process unintelligent or illogical.

Shirina wrote:

polyglide wrote:I could say that your comments are based not on your knowledge but on just quoting others.

Well duh! That is how we gain our knowledge. What a crappy world we would live in if every human had to figure out everything on his or her own. Every generation would be wrestling with how to light a fire instead of pondering string theory and the origin of life.

Besides, unless you're the inventor and founder of Christianity as well as the author of the Bible, you're just "quoting others" as well.

"Kerpow" That folks is how you don't pull your punches, or if you prefer is a "slam dunk"....

Tosh wrote:

There is no evidence whatsoever that something can come from nothing.

So the universe cannot come from nothing because God came from nothing and created the universe from nothing?

NURSE...........he has not been taking his meds again.

It's ok the nurse can mash them into the fruit she's cutting into his bowl.

 Beat me to it Sheldon, Nurse Shirina does not give pills anymore does she.  she goes SLAM DUNK!!.  

There is only one way to prove that something bcan come from nothing, no two ways realy.

Firstly you produce a perfect vacuum, this of course is impossible,
for several reasons, however, just pretend you could, then without any help produce something withing the vacuum.

Secondly you start with something and reduce it to nothing.

To date this has not been done and never will be done because everything destroyed becomes something else and cannot be lost.

polyglide wrote:There is only one way to prove that something bcan come from nothing, no two ways realy.

Firstly you produce a perfect vacuum, this of course is impossible,
for several reasons, however, just pretend you could, then without any help produce something withing the vacuum.

Secondly you start with something and reduce it to nothing.

To date this has not been done and never will be done because everything destroyed becomes something else and cannot be lost.  

I think you might find that by employing these types of logical fallacies that your posts are not having the desired effect.

They will on those who actually understand.

polyglide wrote:They will on those who actually understand.

Only if self-deprecation was your intention there.

You mean as all polyglides posts are Dan.    

polyglide wrote:There is only one way to prove that something bcan come from nothing, no two ways realy.

Firstly you produce a perfect vacuum, this of course is impossible,
for several reasons, however, just pretend you could, then without any help produce something withing the vacuum.

Secondly you start with something and reduce it to nothing.

To date this has not been done and never will be done because everything destroyed becomes something else and cannot be lost.  

Proof positive that there is no god, no deity that was truly benevolent would allow one of it's followers to embarrass themselves as you have done in that post.

polyglide wrote:They will on those who actually understand.

Yes, but those people will have no access to the internet, they may get to watch some television, while their nurse cuts their food up, but that's all.

Their nurse then teaches them how to spell,without great success.

polyglide wrote:Firstly you produce a perfect vacuum, this of course is impossible,
for several reasons, however, just pretend you could, then without any help produce something withing the vacuum.

Umm ... no.

This "perfect vacuum" would still need to exist somewhere ... and because there is a somewhere, it cannot be considered true nothingness. You would have to envision a state of real nothingness. Can you do that? Is that even possible for the human mind to contemplate? I doubt it is for Christians, especially, since the idea of their consciousnesses ceasing to exist in totality is just something they can't understand (thus this urgent need for a god). At any rate, no one even knows if true nothingness can even exist, and even if it did, there would be no way to prove it since there would be no possible way to observe it.

Therefore, you're basing you entire thought experiment on a set of variables that a) aren't even known to exist and b) are biased in such a way as to make your argument more likely to be true. In other words, you're like a game operator at a carnival who has the game rigged to ensure that no one ever wins the big teddy bear hanging from the tent ceiling. Anyone can cheat, polyglide, and intellectual cheating is the most often committed and most tolerated form of unethical behavior.

Aaaand, of course, we end up with the standard question of, "Where did your god come from then?"

Yeah, I know. God exists beyond, and outside of, the space-time continuum. I'm well aware of this special pleading fallacy Christians like bouncing back to atheists as if that is a legal serve. When dealing with made-up all-powerful gods, you can put him anywhere and anywhen you deem necessary to avoid logical arguments from non-believers. If you have any doubts about how religions have been moving the goal posts, all you have to do is look at religion's history.

It used to be that gods lived among humans, but when that became apparently false, the succeeding religions put their gods on mountain tops or inside forbidden temples. But when people started climbing mountains and sneaking into the temples, those religious fell apart. So the next generation of religions put god off the planet entirely where no one could venture. But even that wasn't good enough because people could still make logical arguments against it. So the final (so far) version of religion not only put god off the planet, it also put god outside of our own reality. Thus we have the three main religions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

The only reason I make spelling mistakes is so that you actually read what I say sevaral times.
There you go again an a instead of an e.

Instead of attempting to, by rediculous comments, disprove my points for once Dr Sheldon, say just exactly what is wrong with my assuption regarding getting something from nothing.

And not with a lot of usual tripe.

I thought this was the perfect vacuum until I discovered it can't do your stairs.

Yep. I was right, thoughtless and brainless

Don't be rediculous

You certainly give a 100% example of rediculous by your posts.

Keep it up I like a good laugh.

polyglide wrote:You certainly give a 100% example of rediculous by your posts.

 

THATS WHAT WE SAY ABOUT YOURS POLLYFILLA.  

Yes, but you cannot tell stork from butter.

polyglide wrote:Yep. I was right, thoughtless and brainless

The comma after "right " is not required. You are indeed right thoughtless and right brainless.

Oh, and humourless to boot.

Who else Norm says they make spelling mistakes on purpose, just to get our attention so we will read their posts several times.?

.... "just to get our attention so we will read their posts several times."

Is that why some agnostics pretend to be atheists, just to get our attention, do you think, stu?

polyglide wrote:The only reason I make spelling mistakes is so that you actually read what I say sevaral times.
There you go again an a instead of an e.

Instead of attempting to, by rediculous comments, disprove my points for once Dr Sheldon, say just exactly what is wrong with my assuption regarding getting something from nothing.

And not with a lot of usual tripe.

Calm down, take a deep breath or something. You must want your views questioned else you'd not post them in a public forum. Oh, and I don't believe I criticised your appalling spelling, that was another poster. A bigger concern for me is your risible logic.

What's wrong with your assumption is just that, it's an assumption. If you want to derive superhuman deities from assumptions knock yourself out, but don't post them on here then cry when someone shows how fatuous they are. You're trying to insert your god into a gap in human knowledge, that's spurious logic.

oftenwrong wrote:.... "just to get our attention so we will read their posts several times."

Is that why some agnostics pretend to be atheists, just to get our attention, do you think, stu?

All atheists should also be agnostic by default, or else they're dealing in absolutes same as theists. I am as sure that no deity exists as I am that no unicorns or mermaids exists, simply because there is no evidence for any of them.

exactly OW,WASTES OF SPACE do you not think too.  

I'm baffled that anyone should think it important to make a distinction - but  à chacun son gout, as they say in Spearmint Rhino.

I don't see the logic behind the agnostic proviso attached to atheism, I think it is misapplied, in my view " knowledge ( gnosis) is a term that soly defines and identifies existence not non-existence. To then say we need KNOWLEDGE of God not existing to disbelieve seems spurious to me, and is applied nowhere else with zero supporting evidence. I fail to see the point of agnosticism for non-existence with zero evidence.

If a God did indeed make a universe especially for us, can someone explain why he insists to be hidden from nearly every generation of humans since Adam? This seems an awful lot of work to stay in hiding and allow your creation to beat the living shit out of each other over their hidden God or Gods.

Possibly He intended us to fight for our beliefs, Tosh. The Holy Bible is full of stories about people being "tested".

I can think of a more rational explanation.