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 Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Mon Feb 23, 2015 3:53 pm

polyglide wrote:Dr. Sheldon,
Tell me about the butterfly.

Read one of my many answers already posted to this request. It'll be the same no matter how many times you ask.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Mon Feb 23, 2015 7:23 pm

polyglide wrote:Dr. Sheldon,
Tell me about the butterfly.

http://literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/

Start there, when you've read that you can move on to more contemporary material.

Try any of these:

The Greatest Show on Earth
The Blind Watchmaker
Unweaving the Rainbow
River Out of Eden
The Selfish Gene
Evolution The Human Story
The Incredible Unlikeliness of Being: Evolution and the Making of Us
Why Evolution is True
Your Inner Fish: The amazing discovery of our 375-million-year-old ancestor

There is literally a limitless number of books detailing the scientifically validated evidence for evolution if you genuinely want to know then there's no reason not to read them.

by oftenwrong Mon Feb 23, 2015 7:26 pm

The topic heading is of course a nonsensical proposition.

atheism
[ ˈeɪθɪɪz(ə)m ]
NOUN
disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

How can you be in conflict with something you don't believe exists?

Here lies madness.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Mon Feb 23, 2015 7:41 pm

polyglide wrote:Dr. Sheldon,
Tell me about the butterfly.

Butterflies are part of the class of Insects in the order Lepidoptera. Adult butterflies have large, often brightly coloured wings, and conspicuous, fluttering flight. The group comprises the true butterflies, the skippers and the moth-butterflies.

Butterfly fossils date to the mid Eocene epoch, 40–50 million years ago.

Somewhat older than your creationist chums would have believe the earth is. Tell us P are you a young earth creationist?

by Norm Deplume Mon Feb 23, 2015 7:58 pm

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:
polyglide wrote:Dr. Sheldon,
Tell me about the butterfly.

http://literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/

You may be pitching this too high, Sheldon. The best start is probably The Very Hungry Caterpillar by Eric Carle (or, for those who believe in supernatural and eldritch horrors from beyond space and time, The Very Hungry Cthulhupillar by Jamie Chambers).

by boatlady Mon Feb 23, 2015 9:07 pm

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Mon Feb 23, 2015 10:29 pm

Norm Deplume wrote:
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:
polyglide wrote:Dr. Sheldon,
Tell me about the butterfly.

http://literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/

You may be pitching this too high, Sheldon. The best start is probably The Very Hungry Caterpillar by Eric Carle (or, for those who believe in supernatural and eldritch horrors from beyond space and time, The Very Hungry Cthulhupillar by Jamie Chambers).

You may have a point.

by boatlady Tue Feb 24, 2015 8:14 am

Is 'The Very Hungry Cthullhupillar' really a for real book? Might have to read it to complete my Lovecraftian knowledge

by polyglide Tue Feb 24, 2015 10:20 am

Dr. Sheldon,
Darwin nor anyone else can expain how the butterfly or any other animal evolved stage by stage.

It is all pure conjecture.

I ask a simple question and you reply with a childish remark, remarks.

There is no explanation regarding which came first the egg, or the producer, nor how anything lived with only half of that which exists now, or part thereof

Darwin only dwelt mainly in plant life and even his finding in that respect are arbitary.

Let me put you in the picture regarding hypotheses.

Scientific research etc; into a specific subject with the intent to establish it's worth.

The result of which PURPORTS to solve the problem.

Purports- claims to be, or usued in an arguement etc;
it does not establish the truth.

So if you understand English, you will understand why I take little notice of the above and place my belief on what I can, see, feel and hear, along with experience.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Feb 24, 2015 10:34 am

polyglide wrote:Dr. Sheldon,
Darwin nor anyone else can expain how the butterfly or any other animal evolved stage by stage. It is all pure conjecture.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:I'm guessing you're alone in not seeing the irony in this wild erroneous and yet again unevidenced claim.

I ask a simple question and you reply with a childish remark, remarks.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Well then you've had a little glimpse of what it's like responding to your posts. Though I have repeatedly given you proper answers to this question as anyone can see, so what else do you expect from such repetitive dishonesty?

Darwin only dwelt mainly in plant life and even his finding in that respect are arbitary.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Both claims are entirely incorrect and entirely unevidenced, well done.

Let me put you in the picture regarding hypotheses.
Scientific research etc; into a specific subject with the intent to establish it's worth.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Another straw man polemic since I already know this and evolution is not an hypothesis. Or did you perhaps not know that?

The result of which PURPORTS to solve the problem.
Purports- claims to be, or usued in an arguement etc;
it does not establish the truth.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Evolution is not an hypothesis. Though this would still be more rational than guesses based on blind belief in ancient superstition about supernatural magic.

So if you understand English, you will understand why I take little notice of the above and place my belief on what I can, see, feel and hear, along with experience.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:I'd say it's because you don't grasp even basic science or evolution, and are willfully determined not to learn, preferring instead to believe bronze age superstitions. What do I win?

I see you can't avoid the return key still.

by polyglide Tue Feb 24, 2015 10:52 am

Dr. Sheldon,
My lack of the skill regarding a computer, is only beaten by your lack of understanding the written word and the actual understanding of anothers point of view.

Evolution as I have stated many times is a fact.

Darwin's ideas, theory, takes evolution into a different area than plants, his ideas have been tested by hypotheses by other scientists who disagree on many counts, the main one being the Quntum Leap theory as opposed to his stage by stage theory.

You ask what do I win?

Have you heard of the WOODEN SPOON.

by Norm Deplume Tue Feb 24, 2015 1:19 pm

boatlady wrote:Is 'The Very Hungry Cthullhupillar' really a for real book? Might have to read it to complete my Lovecraftian knowledge

It certainly is. It was published only a couple of weeks ago, largely through game shops rather than book shops. You can see it here: http://www.gameslore.com/acatalog/PR_Very_Hungry_Cthulhupillar.html

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Feb 24, 2015 2:24 pm

polyglide wrote:Dr. Sheldon,
My lack of the skill regarding a computer, is only beaten by your lack of understanding the written word and the actual understanding of anothers point of view.

Evolution as I have stated many times is a fact.

Darwin's ideas, theory, takes evolution into a different area than plants, his ideas have been tested by hypotheses by other scientists who disagree on many counts, the main one being the Quntum Leap theory as opposed to his stage by stage theory.

You ask what do I win?

Have you heard of the WOODEN SPOON.

I really don't know why you're insisting on repeating such an obviously erroneous claim. I'll try bullet points.

1. If Darwinian evolution had been refuted then:
a. Science would have discarded it. They haven't.
b. The person falsifying evolution would be a household name and a Nobel prize winner. So please tell us why they're not?
2. The largest christian churches on the planet have accepted Darwinian evolution as a fact.
3. Attaching supernatural causation to evolution requires YOU to cite the peer reviewed scientic evidence. Where is it?

by polyglide Wed Feb 25, 2015 11:16 am

DR, Sheldon,
I have explained how I feel all things were created, I have given you by what, which is evidently available and by whom, in my opinion.

The only thing necessary to confirm all that I have said is a creator.

Taking every know element involved in the universe and in particular the earth and the chances of all being by chance are such that they are beyond calculation.

Even one aspect necessary involves odds of 10 to the power of 45 and there are numerous other factors involved with similar odds, when all the odds are calculated they are such as to be many times those accepted as impossible.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed Feb 25, 2015 1:10 pm

polyglide wrote:DR, Sheldon,
I have explained how I feel all things were created, I have given you by what, which is evidently available and by whom, in my opinion.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:You've shared your beliefs in bronze age superstitions yes, what has this to do with the questions in my last post?

The only thing necessary to confirm all that I have said is a creator.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:The only thing necessary is proper evidence, and you haven't any.

Taking every know element involved in the universe and in particular the earth and the chances of all being by chance are such that they are beyond calculation.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:So you're making a bare unevidenced claimed based on your inability to calculate something? Oh dear.

Even one aspect necessary involves odds of 10 to the power of 45
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:One aspect of what necessary for what? It's all very sad you think that making these silly stats up proves anything.

and there are numerous other factors involved with similar odds, when all the odds are calculated they are such as to be many times those accepted as impossible.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:You started this post claiming they were incalculable, you are making yourself look ridiculous.

Now please go back and reread my post as you've completely ignored it, and posted complete gibberish that isn't remotely relevant.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed Feb 25, 2015 1:12 pm

polyglide wrote:DR, Sheldon,
I have explained how I feel all things were created, I have given you by what, which is evidently available and by whom, in my opinion.

The only thing necessary to confirm all that I have said is a creator.

Taking every know element involved in the universe and in particular the earth and the chances of all being by chance are such that they are beyond calculation.

Even one aspect necessary involves odds of 10 to the power of 45 and there are numerous other factors involved with similar odds, when all the odds are calculated they are such as to be many times those accepted as impossible.

I posted this...

Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote: 1. If Darwinian evolution had been refuted then:
a. Science would have discarded it. They haven't.
b. The person falsifying evolution would be a household name and a Nobel prize winner. So please tell us why they're not?
2. The largest christian churches on the planet have accepted Darwinian evolution as a fact.
3. Attaching supernatural causation to evolution requires YOU to cite the peer reviewed scientic evidence. Where is it?

So perhaps you can answer my questions now as what you've posted is irrelevant unevidenced nonsense?

by polyglide Wed Feb 25, 2015 4:47 pm

Dr. Sheldon,
Your total lack of intelligence defies belief.

I expained exactly how things came about.

The atoms are evident. the molicules are evident, material is composed of both, all life is composed of both.

If something exists it has both a cause and a reason.

Evolution has no explanation whatsoever how material was created from atoms, nor how atoms themselves were created.

The latest scientists have come up with is that we have a black hole some billions of times larger than our sun, which is throwing out winds that stop new stars from forming.

Now originally, as I recall, it was thought, nothing could escape from a black hole.

Me thinks the above black hole is the same as the one you keep digging for yourself, due to your inability to consider what is actually said, as opposed to your misinterpretation, I feel you have the same problem as snowyflake.

It can be cured but it wiil take time.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed Feb 25, 2015 8:30 pm

polyglide wrote:Dr. Sheldon,
Your total lack of intelligence defies belief.

I'm devastated you think so, though realistically I have to say that the fact you have finally found something to be incredulous about is a promising development. Now you've been warned about your childish ad hominem enough times. So how about you grow up and focus on the content of the post. You have repeatedly directed insults at me, Snowyflake, and Norm, basically anyone who disagrees with you, the sad thing is we're trying to help you. So do us a favour, either grow up or leave it alone there's a good chap.

by Norm Deplume Wed Feb 25, 2015 8:38 pm

polyglide wrote:
Evolution has no explanation whatsoever how material was created from atoms, nor how atoms themselves were created.

No it doesn't. Nor does the theory of evolution explain how the sun keeps shining. I wonder why that is?

polyglide wrote:
The latest scientists have come up with is that we have a black hole some billions of times larger than our sun, which is throwing out winds that stop new stars from forming.

Now originally, as I recall, it was thought, nothing could escape from a black hole.

Originally, yes. However according to Stephen Hawking's calculations over forty years ago it was shown that black holes dissipate - very slowly - by losing energy through virtual particle pairs formed at the event horizon ('Hawking radiation'). The energy is lost at a rae in inverse proportion to the mass of the black hole.

If you post a link to this theory of black holes we might be able to see how accurate your summation is. I suspect that the "wind" is particles and radiation emitted from the accretion disc rather than the singularity.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed Feb 25, 2015 8:59 pm

polyglide wrote:I expained exactly how things came about. The atoms are evident. the molicules are evident, material is composed of both, all life is composed of both.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Is this a wind-up? Can you really be insulting someone's intelligence in the same post you use molicules (sic)?

polyglide If something exists it has both a cause and a reason.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:So God had a cause then? What was that in your humble opinion? You really ought not to make absolute claims, epistemologically speaking you've made yourself look a bit of a 2@.

polyglide Evolution has no explanation whatsoever how material was created from atoms, nor how atoms themselves were created.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote: True enough, but then neither does calculus, or Pythagoras's theorem, or Sir Isaac Newton's theory of gravity, are they all wrong as well then? Or is it perhaps that like evolution they are not making any claims about the origin of life? Yes that's it surely, well that's a relief. Now I look forward to you making this asinine claim again and again and again even though it's an irrelevant straw man, red herring, appeal to ignorance etc. etc., sigh.

Interesting link you might find edifying. "Jeremy England, a 31-year-old physicist at MIT, thinks he has found the underlying physics driving the origin and evolution of life." No mention of deities or the supernatural I'm afraid, not to worry I'm sure it'll never be proved, and even if it is you can always just deny it as you do with evolution, head in the sand like an Ostrich

https://www.quantamagazine.org/20140122-a-new-physics-theory-of-life/

polyglide The latest scientists have come up with is that we have a black hole some billions of times larger than our sun, which is throwing out winds that stop new stars from forming. Now originally, as I recall, it was thought, nothing could escape from a black hole. Me thinks the above black hole is the same as the one you keep digging for yourself, due to your inability to consider what is actually said, as opposed to your misinterpretation, I feel you have the same problem as snowyflake.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Yes we do seem to have the same problem, your bombastic supercilious overinflated opinion of your own opinion is a problem for us both, along with your complete ignorance of the scientific process and methods, and your complete inability as per the Dunning Kruger effect to grasp this.

It can be cured but it wiil take time.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Can your execrable spelling and grammar be cured? Also Will that give you enough time to answer the questions you've ignored?

Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:
1. If Darwinian evolution had been refuted then why hasn't science discarded it? Also the person falsifying evolution would be a household name and a Nobel prize winner. So please tell us why they're not?
2. Why have the largest christian churches on the planet accepted Darwinian evolution as a fact?
3. Attaching supernatural causation to evolution requires YOU to cite the peer reviewed scientific evidence. Where is it?

by boatlady Wed Feb 25, 2015 9:57 pm

Your total lack of intelligence defies belief.

PG, I do believe the above comment comes under the heading of ad hominem abuse
I believe I have already made the views of the moderation team quite clear on this point - if you cannot discuss the topic in a civilised manner without name calling, your comments will be deleted.
Please consider this a warning

by snowyflake Thu Feb 26, 2015 8:05 am

boatlady wrote:Your total lack of intelligence defies belief.

PG, I do believe the above comment comes under the heading of ad hominem abuse
I believe I have already made the views of the moderation team quite clear on this point - if you cannot discuss the topic in a civilised manner without name calling, your comments will be deleted.
Plearse consider this a warning

Would saying that polyglides belief defies a total lack of intelligence be considered an ad hominem? If it does, I won't post it. Laughing

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Thu Feb 26, 2015 8:12 am

snowyflake wrote:Would saying that polyglides belief defies a total lack of intelligence be considered an ad hominem? If it does, I won't post it.

To be fair I consider anything I post to be fair game. In fact it'd be quite a refreshing change if he did address the content of my posts. I fear though that just like MBen on the other forum his posts thus far indicate he has no interest in critical debate and is baffled by people who don't see what he sees and believe what he believes.

by snowyflake Thu Feb 26, 2015 10:59 am

Well I don't want to get into trouble with boatlady or break any forum rules but polyglide goes off on tangents that don't address the OP and he certainly doesn't address any uncomfortable questions put to him. Dogmatism is his religion. Abide by the word of god regardless of inconsistencies, evidence against it, or rational arguments refuting it. He is stubborn in his faith but not intelligent with it. What is he afraid will happen if he even entertains a rational thought? That he'll burn in hell for eternity? Seriously?

by polyglide Fri Feb 27, 2015 5:10 pm

snowyflake,
If you cannot take it do not attempt to give it.

Every time you have attempted a make a clever remark I have shown you how poor you are at attempting ridicule.

I doubt if you actually understand the meaning of intelligence or you would not use it so unwisely.

I am perfectly willing to both debate without rancour and answer relevant questions but will retaliate when the time dictates.

by polyglide Fri Feb 27, 2015 5:38 pm

Dr. Sheldon,
I agree with Darwin's theory in as much as things evolve, I have said so many times.

They evolve according to changed circumstances and possible mutations etc;

He does not say evolution is the source of life.

As far as the churches go, I would think they all feel the same as the above.

Just having the odds and probabilities including possibilities of life comming about by chance considered, by the scientists involved in these calculations, you would be more likely to find Father Christmas riding a unicorn, jumping from cloud to cloud, singing, Comming Round The Mountains, than the likelyhood of life comming about by chance.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Fri Feb 27, 2015 9:32 pm

polyglide wrote: I am perfectly willing to both debate without rancour and answer relevant questions but will retaliate when the time dictates.

The rancour is fine, the ad hominem is not, you clearly don't know the difference, but the second part is hilarious as you never answer questions I put to you. Do you really think we won't notice? No need to answer that one, but I'll scroll up this page and repost a few question I've asked you and you have ignored to prove the point, that's called evidencing a claim by the way, you ought to try it.

polyglide If something exists it has both a cause and a reason.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:
So God had a cause then? What was that in your humble opinion?

polyglide Evolution has no explanation whatsoever how material was created from atoms, nor how atoms themselves were created.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:
True enough, but then neither does calculus, or Pythagoras's theorem, or Sir Isaac Newton's theory of gravity, are they all wrong as well then? Or is it perhaps that like evolution they are not making any claims about the origin of life?

Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:
1. If Darwinian evolution had been refuted then why hasn't science discarded it? Also the person falsifying evolution would be a household name and a Nobel prize winner. So please tell us why they're not?
2. Why have the largest christian churches on the planet been forced to accept Darwinian evolution as a fact if it is already falsified?
3. Attaching supernatural causation to evolution requires YOU to cite the peer reviewed scientific evidence. Where is it?

Taking every know element involved in the universe and in particular the earth and the chances of all being by chance are such that they are beyond calculation.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:
So you're making a bare unevidenced claimed based on your inability to calculate something?

Even one aspect necessary involves odds of 10 to the power of 45
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:
One aspect of what necessary for what?

Now that's just the questions I've asked and you've ignored on this page, aren't you ashamed to lie and claim it's others who are not answering your questions? Unless you'd care to show a question of yours that's not been answered, which I doubt you can as everyone takes a deal of time wading through your bare claims and logical fallacies and then still does you the courtesy of answering them point by point. You just don't like what they say, which is not the same thing.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Fri Feb 27, 2015 11:20 pm

polyglide wrote: I agree with Darwin's theory in as much as things evolve, I have said so many times. They evolve according to changed circumstances and possible mutations etc;He does not say evolution is the source of life.As far as the churches go, I would think they all feel the same as the above.Just having the odds and probabilities including possibilities of life comming about by chance considered, by the scientists involved in these calculations, you would be more likely to find Father Christmas riding a unicorn, jumping from cloud to cloud, singing, Comming Round The Mountains, than the likelyhood of life comming about by chance.

It's likelihood not likelyhood (sic) and it's coming not comming (sic).

You have said many times that Darwinian evolution has been refuted, and that macro evolution is untrue, so claiming you agree with Darwin's theory of evolution is clearly disingenuous at the very least. Of course Darwinian evolution makes no comment on the origin of life, this is a pointless statement, evolution does not and has never, made any claims about the origins of life, so what? The churches position is a matter of record, I'm not sure what you hope to to achieve by guessing.

Polyglide wrote:"Just having the odds and probabilities including possibilities of life comming about by chance considered, by the scientists involved in these calculations, you would be more likely to find Father Christmas riding a unicorn, jumping from cloud to cloud, singing, Comming Round The Mountains, than the likelyhood of life comming about by chance. "

No one has claimed life came about by chance no matter how many times you repeat this lie. This of course has nothing to do with evolution as evolution makes no claims about the origins of life, good grief this is tedious, why do you keep rehashing the same spurious lies and red herring's, whilst refusing to address any questions or points put to you?

Try showing some honesty here and addressing the question I've reposted in my last post.

by snowyflake Sat Feb 28, 2015 12:00 pm

polyglide wrote:snowyflake,
If you cannot take it do not attempt to give it.

Every time you have attempted a make a clever remark I have shown you how poor you are at attempting ridicule.

I doubt if you actually understand the meaning of intelligence or you would not use it so unwisely.

I am perfectly willing to both debate without rancour and answer relevant questions but will retaliate when the time dictates.

too funny

by snowyflake Sat Feb 28, 2015 12:05 pm

polyglide wrote:Dr. Sheldon,
I agree with Darwin's theory in as much as things evolve, I have said so many times.

They evolve according to changed circumstances and possible mutations etc;

He does not say evolution is the source of life.

As far as the churches go, I would think they all feel the same as the above.

Just having the odds and probabilities including possibilities of life comming about by chance considered, by the scientists involved in these calculations, you would be more likely to find Father Christmas riding a unicorn, jumping from cloud to cloud, singing, Comming Round The Mountains, than the likelyhood of life comming about by chance.

Can you show us some of these calculations please? Do you understand what odds mean? Do you understand what probabilities are? Just because the probability of an event happening is low doesn't mean it CAN'T happen. Even in the lottery where the odds are 1 in 100,000,000,000 chance of winning, someone wins! Clearly, in spite of the low probability ascribed by certain mathematicians, we are here. The explanation of the diversity of species on the planet has been elegantly explained by Darwin. How life was sparked on this planet is still being debated. We don't know. Not yet. Evolution is a fact. How life was sparked is unknown at the moment.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sun Mar 01, 2015 8:36 am

Given how often in human history the overly credulous and the superstitious have tried to insert magic and the supernatural into the unknown you'd think they'd show a little more caution and some epistemological humility. Instead of the kind of blind bombastic hubris were a done very single claim that Polyglide makes.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Mon Mar 02, 2015 10:43 pm

Not sure what happened to that last sentence, but the predictive text on my phone appears to be very unpredictable. Rolling Eyes

by snowyflake Mon Mar 02, 2015 11:05 pm

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:Not sure what happened to that last sentence, but the predictive text on my phone appears to be very unpredictable.

You might just have tripped over your merlot Smile

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Mar 03, 2015 6:35 am

Still getting to grips with my new phone. It's cutting edge technology, unlike me who was made in the 60's I'm afraid. Very Happy

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Mar 17, 2015 10:36 pm

JP Cusick wrote:It is Atheism against God but God is not against Atheism. Atheism is a negative concept, as in saying "no" as in no God, no Deity, no conscious higher power, etc. 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.

"Beware the irrational, however seductive. Shun the ‘transcendent’ and all who invite you to subordinate or annihilate yourself. Distrust compassion; prefer dignity for yourself and others. Don’t be afraid to be thought arrogant or selfish. Picture all experts as if they were mammals. Never be a spectator of unfairness or stupidity. Seek out argument and disputation for their own sake; the grave will supply plenty of time for silence. Suspect your own motives, and all excuses. Do not live for others any more than you would expect others to live for you."

"Faith is the surrender of the mind; it’s the surrender of reason, it’s the surrender of the only thing that makes us different from other mammals. It’s our need to believe, and to surrender our skepticism and our reason, our yearning to discard that and put all our trust or faith in someone or something, that is the sinister thing to me. Of all the supposed virtues, faith must be the most overrated."

Christopher Hitchens

by polyglide Fri Mar 20, 2015 11:16 am

snowyflake,
I have given the means by which scientists calculate the odds of any event taking place, it is accepted by the majority if not ALL scientists and much of their obsevations are based on those odds etc;

Huxley, odds of one over ten to the 50th power are considered an impossibility.

For many parts of evolotion to be true the odds are millions of times, yes, millions of times greater and the noughts involved after the one would need a volume involving several thousand pages to include them.

But then why worry about that when snowyflake knows it all.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Fri Mar 20, 2015 11:51 am

Why if your claim is correct does the entire scientific world disagree?

Who proved your claim and falsified evolution? Why is this news passing unnoticed by the entire world. Where are the headlines? Where is the Nobel prize?

You're simply parroting creationist propaganda and are either too gullible or too dishonest to grasp this. All very sad, and utterly laughable.

by Norm Deplume Fri Mar 20, 2015 1:57 pm

polyglide wrote:snowyflake,
I have given the means by which scientists calculate the odds of any event taking place, it is accepted by the majority if not ALL scientists and much of their obsevations are based on those odds etc;

Could you show them again or provide a link because I don't remember reading that?

polyglide wrote:
Huxley, odds of one over ten to the 50th power are considered an impossibility.

So much for a god then.
One over 10^50 as a fraction does not express odds - that would be one chance in 10^50.
A fraction or decimal number > 0 and ≤ is probability and by definition not an impossibility.

polyglide wrote:
For many parts of evolotion to be true the odds are millions of times, yes, millions of times greater and the noughts involved after the one would need a volume involving several thousand pages to include them.

You do not understand scientific notation do you? 999 million times greater than 10^50 is
9,9900,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 or more succinctly 9.99x 10^58

Any alternative to evolution you care to propose would be less likely still.

polyglide wrote: But then why worry about that when snowyflake knows it all.

She has obviously impressed you, but in truth she does not know everything but she certainly knows more than you do.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Fri Mar 20, 2015 2:06 pm

Norm Deplume wrote:
polyglide wrote:snowyflake,
I have given the means by which scientists calculate the odds of any event taking place, it is accepted by the majority if not ALL scientists and much of their obsevations are based on those odds etc;

Could you show them again or provide a link because I don't remember reading that?

polyglide wrote:
Huxley, odds of one over ten to the 50th power are considered an impossibility.
So much for a god then.
One over 10^50 as a fraction does not express odds - that would be one chance in 10^50.
A fraction or decimal number > 0 and ≤ is probability and by definition not an impossibility.

polyglide wrote:
For many parts of evolotion to be true the odds are millions of times, yes, millions of times greater and the noughts involved after the one would need a volume involving several thousand pages to include them.

You do not understand scientific notation do you? 999 million times greater than 10^50 is
9,9900,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 or more succinctly 9.99x 10^58

Any alternative to evolution you care to propose would be less likely still.

polyglide wrote: But then why worry about that when snowyflake knows it all.

She has obviously impressed you, but in truth she does not know everything but she certainly knows more than you do.

Hi Norm, were dealing with a stunning example of the Dunning Kruger effect I'm afraid. I'm not sure where he's hoovered up these creationist clichés he keeps parroting but it's abundantly clear he doesn't fully understand them or how weak and erroneous they are. He has claimed on here to be 100% certain about the existence of his god, if he can't see the paradox, or even the irony of such a claim next to this woeful attempt at a mathematical version of Hoyle's fallacy then I'm not sure what hope there is of any sensible discussion. Combined with his propensity for histrionics when his beliefs are questioned, and his inability to grasp even the most basic logical concepts it's all pretty hopeless.

Though you have to love the way he relentlessly tells everyone that they're too unintelligent to understand what he's saying, as the fault of course can only be with the reader, and not the writer. Rolling Eyes

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Fri Mar 20, 2015 2:09 pm

Note how Polyglide drops in, posts ridiculous and palpably false claims, then leaves all the questions for evidence unanswered, only to return a while later and make exactly the same claims as if the questions that demand evidence for his claims have not been asked at all.

1. Who proved your claim and falsified evolution?
2. Why is this news passing unnoticed by the entire world.
3. Where are the headlines?
4 Who won the Nobel prize for falsifying evolution?

I'll bet he ignores this as he has done many times before.

by Norm Deplume Fri Mar 20, 2015 2:13 pm

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:Note how Polyglide drops in, posts ridiculous and palpably false claims, then leaves all the questions for evidence unanswered, only to return a while later and make exactly the same claims as if the questions that demand evidence for his claims have not been asked at all.

Yep, he's a seagull. And an ultracrepidarian.

by Sponsored content