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 Wed Apr 08, 2015 9:10 am

All those posts are on this page btw.

by polyglide Wed Apr 08, 2015 11:01 am

Dr, Sheldon,
There is no way you or any of your scientist friends can prove that there is no God or no Satan nor in fact evil spirits.

Just as none of the same can prove the means by which life evolved from start to finish.

Creation is a Fact, anything that exists must have been created by one means or another.

None of your scientist friends can explain either the beggining of life nor that which started life originated.

About the 20th of March 2015, I watched a scientist expplain the present up to date thoughts on the Big Bang theory and energy etc.

His view is that the Big Bang started when there was a very high inflation, he did not say of what, then there was a Big Bang that lasted several millionths of a second and the result was the start of the universe as we know it.

He went on to say that energy could not be either produced or destroyed etc;

He ended up by saying he had no idea what was before the Big Bang not what went Bang.

That sums up the scientific thoughts on the universe.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed Apr 08, 2015 1:19 pm

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
There is no way you or any of your scientist friends can prove that there is no God or no Satan nor in fact evil spirits.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:So what? You can't prove there aren't mermaids hiding in the sea or unicorns in the forests, does this mean you believe there are? This is a logical fallacy called argumentum ad ignorantiam, I've explained it to you numerous times.

Just as none of the same can prove the means by which life evolved from start to finish.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:As opposed to the peer reviewed evidenced you've been unable to produce to support creationism you mean? Do really think repetition will make this claim less erroneous or less idiotic? What am I saying. Of course you do.

Creation is a Fact, anything that exists must have been created by one means or another.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:So you're saying god was created then. What created your god?

None of your scientist friends can explain either the beggining of life nor that which started life originated.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Actually you're wrong yet again, but I suspect that's because you meant say prove and not explain. Again this is yet another use of the logical fallacy argumentum ad ignorantiam.

About the 20th of March 2015, I watched a scientist expplain the present up to date thoughts on the Big Bang theory and energy etc. His view is that the Big Bang started when there was a very high inflation, he did not say of what, then there was a Big Bang that lasted several millionths of a second and the result was the start of the universe as we know it.
He went on to say that energy could not be either produced or destroyed etc;He ended up by saying he had no idea what was before the Big Bang not what went Bang. That sums up the scientific thoughts on the universe.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:No it doesn't. It may sum up your understanding of the scientific thoughts on the universe though. Hardly surprising as prefer bronze age superstitions about magic involving talking snakes and magic apples.

Seriously poly, turn off the computer walk up to a librarian and ask her to direct you to the books on evolution. Don't stop reading until your woeful grasp of the subject has improved. Or just admit you've zero interact in science or evidence and prefer the comfort blanket of blind faith. It's your choice after all. I just don't know why you cone here trying to brow beat people who know better into accepting you have anything approaching evidence.

by polyglide Fri Apr 10, 2015 10:43 am

DR, Sheldon,
You repeatedly say I have not answered your questions.

So let us just have a run down of my opiniopns against yours.

Creation is a fact, if a thing exists it has been created by one means or another, so creation cannot be denied by any scientists.

Evolution can only take place involving things that already exist and only under limited circumstances.

There is ample proof and examples of a spirit world as you will find out for yourself if you indulge in attempting to contact them.

Log on to spirit world.

Omnipotence as applied to God indictes that he has powers beyond our understanding and nothing more, to suggest he cannot use these powers in any manner he wishes is silly.

God at all times, if all the circumstances are considered, has always acted in the best interests of mankind as a whole and those who believe in him in particular circumstances.

regards.

by polyglide Fri Apr 10, 2015 10:45 am

spelling mistakes noted.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Fri Apr 10, 2015 12:49 pm

Ad nausea repetition of your bare unevidenced claims. They're nonsense As you can't evidence them.

1 Cite a peer reviewed publication that has published evidence for creationism?
2. Cite a peer reviewed publication that has one piece of evidence falsifying Darwinian evolution by natural selection?
a) Name the Nobel prize winning scientists involved.
b) Explain why the biggest news story ever has gone entirely unnoticed.

You're talking complete nonsense.

It's duly noted that again you completely ignored every single point in my substantive response above. Your dishonesty is tedious.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Fri Apr 10, 2015 3:00 pm

polyglide wrote:DR, Sheldon, Creation is a fact, if a thing exists it has been created by one means or another, so creation cannot be denied by any scientists.

Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:So you're saying your god was created then, as you also claim that it exists, and that "if a thing exists it has been created by one means or another." Otherwise you're going to contradict this rather idiotic and un-evidenced claim for us. Care to take a stab at evidencing how your god was created?

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Fri Apr 10, 2015 3:06 pm

polyglide wrote:DR, Sheldon, Evolution can only take place involving things that already exist and only under limited circumstances.

1. Can you cite the peer reviewed scientific evidence for this?
2. Can you name the Nobel prize winners?
3. Can you explain why this hasn't been on the news at all, despite it being the most newsworthy scientific event EVER?
4. Can you explain why after saying you have not claimed evolution has been falsified you are now saying it has been?

If your claim weren't completely false then Darwinian evolution by natural selection would have been falsified, you really don't grasp this do you? Or what such an event would mean? Dear oh dear poly.... Rolling Eyes

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Fri Apr 10, 2015 3:09 pm

polyglide wrote:DR, Sheldon, There is ample proof and examples of a spirit world as you will find out for yourself if you indulge in attempting to contact them.

No there isn't , don't be absurd.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Fri Apr 10, 2015 3:14 pm

polyglide wrote:DR, Sheldon, Omnipotence as applied to God indictes that he has powers beyond our understanding and nothing more, to suggest he cannot use these powers in any manner he wishes is silly.

I never claimed this, it's you who keeps claiming god is omnipotent and has to allow the devil free reign, not me. Though it's obvious you don't really understand why the two claims are contradictory. Which is fairly hilarious in itself.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Fri Apr 10, 2015 3:21 pm

polyglide wrote:DR, Sheldon, God at all times, if all the circumstances are considered, has always acted in the best interests of mankind as a whole and those who believe in him in particular circumstances.

How can there be a best way to do this if your god possesses both omniscience and omnipotence? If he has both those qualities then has an infinite number of choices each improving on the last. If you claim he one way is best then this limits his power and knowledge as it suggests god can't think of or will a better choice.

When someone claims a being exists with omniscience or omnipotence it creates certain logical paradoxes, but when you claim a being exists with both and is omni-benevolent, then those logical contradictions start to pile up, as you're showing here. Its very compelling evidence that such a being not only does not exists but cannot exist. If you paused for a moment and thought about it critically you might be able to grasp that, and it's far easier than creating endless un-evidenced rationalisations in a never ending circular argument to try and prop up such an obviously erroneous belief.

by Norm Deplume Sat Apr 11, 2015 9:45 am

polyglide wrote:DR, Sheldon, Creation is a fact, if a thing exists it has been created by one means or another, so creation cannot be denied by any scientists.

Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:So you're saying your god was created then, as you also claim that it exists, and that "if a thing exists it has been created by one means or another." Otherwise you're going to contradict this rather idiotic and un-evidenced claim for us. Care to take a stab at evidencing how your god was created?

[/quote]

Sheldon,

Polyglide's statement is conditional, so if he now claims that his god was not created, it would follow that his god does not exist.

by polyglide Sat Apr 11, 2015 10:57 am

Dr, Sheldon,
Of course in human terms God must have been created.

However, we approach things in human terms when we cannot comprehend the real meaning of creation.

The whole scenario regarding creation and life in general and humans in particular is complex to say the least.

In our terms one can only think in terms of if it is there it must have come from somewhere etc;

If you went into your garden and found an elephant plodding around you would never in a month of Sundays think it just appeared, however, you may have no idea where it came from nor how it got there either.

The same applies to God.

by Norm Deplume Sat Apr 11, 2015 12:53 pm

polyglide wrote:
Of course in human terms God must have been created. However, we approach things in human terms when we cannot comprehend the real meaning of creation.
The whole scenario regarding creation and life in general and humans in particular is complex to say the least.
In our terms one can only think in terms of if it is there it must have come from somewhere etc;

So which parts of your original claim do you find too complex? Does this lead to your failure to comprehend 'the real meaning of creation'. Why did you post as if you understood when you now retreat by saying you do not?

polyglide wrote:
If you went into your garden and found an elephant plodding around you would never in a month of Sundays think it just appeared, however, you may have no idea where it came from nor how it got there either.

The same applies to God.

A better analogy might involve someone saying there was an invisible, intangible, undetectable elephant in the garden. Then you would conclude it was not there at all. The same applies to God.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sat Apr 11, 2015 1:24 pm

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon, Of course in human terms God must have been created.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Then show what created it, and how, what evidence have you for this claim, and why aren''t you worshipping what created your god?

However, we approach things in human terms when we cannot comprehend the real meaning of creation.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:You'll have to explain how a human can approach unevidenced supernatural claims in a non-human way, though judging from your posts thus far I'm going to go out on a limb and guess it involved subjective guessing.

If you went into your garden and found an elephant plodding around you would never in a month of Sundays think it just appeared, however, you may have no idea where it came from nor how it got there either.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:No I wouldn't think it just appeared, because I'd require evidence, you are the one who is happy to accept an explanation that defies natural laws, not me

The same applies to God.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:How so? Are you claiming god is plodding around your garden? You're not making any sense I'm afraid. You already presuppose god exists, you stated on here you're 100% certain. I tried to to explain how stupid it is to make such a claim, epistemologically speaking we can't be 100% certain about anything, an expert debater would know this, you seem unaware of it however.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sat Apr 11, 2015 1:26 pm

You've ignored my question again polyglide.

1. How can there be a best way to do something as you have claimed here, if your god possesses both omniscience and omnipotence?
If he has both those qualities then has an infinite number of choices each improving on the last. If you claim he one way is best then this limits his power and knowledge as it suggests god can't think of or will a better choice.

by stuart torr Sun Apr 26, 2015 9:26 pm

Well Sheldon at least if there was an elephant in my back garden, I would have expected it to have escaped from the local zoo, but if god was in my back garden, by all intense and purposes we should not be able to see him should we?

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sun Apr 26, 2015 9:48 pm

stuart torr wrote:Well Sheldon at least if there was an elephant in my back garden, I would have expected it to have escaped from the local zoo, but if god was in my back garden, by all intense and purposes we should not be able to see him should we?

Well the irony of Polyglide suggesting I'd not look for a plausible rational explanation is wasted on him alone it appears. He's the one who thinks living things were created by supernatural magic after all, not me. How many documented instances of verifiable magic have there ever been?

by stuart torr Sun Apr 26, 2015 9:55 pm

Well I know that I have never met God, but I have a collection of Elephants. Laughing

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sun Apr 26, 2015 11:01 pm

stuart torr wrote:Well I know that I have never met God, but I have a collection of Elephants.

I wonder how such an encounter might pan out to be honest stu. I mean like yourself I've never experienced anything that appeared supernatural or a deity, and if I met one in the flesh, so to speak, I suspect I'd question my own sanity before leaping to the conclusion it was god. Luckily an omnipotent deity could easily make me aware that he was real and I wasn't crazy. So far nada, so if you're listening God, I'm available any time....I guess he's too busy

by stuart torr Sun Apr 26, 2015 11:06 pm

He will be talking to believers Sheldon. Laughing

by polyglide Mon Apr 27, 2015 3:15 pm

Stu,
If there was a football match between the two subjects, the score woulos be 100 for God and 0 for a none believer.

One who believes in God has something to look forward to.

A none believer is in limbo and has nothing other than a set of theories.

There is no feasible alternative to a creator or the odd balls would have given a full explanation.

by stuart torr Mon Apr 27, 2015 3:34 pm

Not at all Polyglide.
Let me put it another way for you.
Football match as you suggested,the score would be 0 for god and 100 for the non-believer,why do you ask? simple really the non-believers look forward to nothing when they pass away, so if there is something on the other side they are in for a massive surprise are they not? if there is nothing on the other side they are not dissappointed are they? where god lovers expecting something on the other side, and find nothing will be very dissappointed will they not?

by polyglide Mon Apr 27, 2015 4:15 pm

Stu,
If there is nothing on the other side then no one will be disapointed.

You always miss the obvious.

How could a believer be disapointed if there was nothing there?.

The fact is that a believer realy believes there is something worth looking forward to a none believer just plods along.

Just think about why the world and it's life, both animal and plant, should come about for no apparent reason and we being able to discuss the matter, it does not make any sense to think it is just a random event.

by stuart torr Mon Apr 27, 2015 4:58 pm

Whereas I do think it all came about randomly, and my answer to the football match was the same as your dinosaur one, score right but answer to wind you up.

by Norm Deplume Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:12 pm

polyglide wrote:
If there was a football match between the two subjects, the score woulos be 100 for God and 0 for a none believer.
One who believes in God has something to look forward to.
A none believer is in limbo and has nothing other than a set of theories.

This has overtones of Pascal's wager.

Unfortunately for your analogy, the position is more like the Tour de France than a football game - there are lots of competitors and not just two.

polyglide wrote:
There is no feasible alternative to a creator or the odd balls would have given a full explanation.

Which creator?

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Mon Apr 27, 2015 6:52 pm

polyglide wrote: If there was a football match between the two subjects, the score woulos be 100 for God and 0 for a none believer. One who believes in God has something to look forward to. A none believer is in limbo and has nothing other than a set of theories. There is no feasible alternative to a creator or the odd balls would have given a full

There is zero evidence for the existence of a deity, and your claims are illogical as your religious beliefs are entirely theoretical. You don't actually say what theories you are contesting so it's a little hard to comment, but atheism requires no theories as it is simply a rejection of faith based belief in the existence of a deity. The burden of proof obviously rests with those claiming the existence of a deity, not with those who reject the claim, Hitchen's razor - slash. I have no idea what the last sentence is supposed to mean.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Mon Apr 27, 2015 6:56 pm

polyglide wrote: Just think about why the world and it's life, both animal and plant, should come about for no apparent reason and we being able to discuss the matter, it does not make any sense to think it is just a random event.

Just because you can't reason this scenario without relying on un-evidenced bronze age magic doesn't make your claims or beliefs the sensible option. random events produce extreme complexity given enough time and repetition, now try imagining how old the universe is and how many planets have ever existed and you might start to see why the atheistic position is a little more credible than bronze age superstition.

by stuart torr Mon Apr 27, 2015 9:16 pm

The odd balls are meant to be atheists Sheldon I do believe, otherwise we would have scored the 100.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Mon Apr 27, 2015 9:57 pm

stuart torr wrote:The odd balls are meant to be atheists Sheldon I do believe, otherwise we would have scored the 100.

There's an adage that fits his comment perfectly.

"Self praise is no recommendation"

It befits a great many religious claims I'm afraid.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Apr 28, 2015 8:26 am

Polyglide wrote:There is no feasible alternative to a creator or the odd balls would have given a full explanation.

Argumentum ad ignorantiam. AGAIN.

The burden of proof is with the person making the claim, not with the atheist who rejects it.

by stuart torr Tue Apr 28, 2015 3:16 pm

IMHO Sheldon that does sound correct.

by polyglide Wed Apr 29, 2015 11:19 am

Stu,
You would be well advised to think for yourself, it does not help to offer nothing yourself but agree with comments I feel you do not actually understand.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed Apr 29, 2015 2:08 pm

Tell us polyglide how many different posters is that now who don't understand what you're saying?

I think I might see the root of the problem.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed Apr 29, 2015 2:30 pm

polyglide wrote:Stu,
You would be well advised to think for yourself, it does not help to offer nothing yourself but agree with comments I feel you do not actually understand.

Which part of the thread topic are you claiming stu has not understood? What evidence have you that stu has misunderstood any of the thread topics?

Anyone can make unevidenced claims after all.

by stuart torr Thu Apr 30, 2015 6:14 pm

You say you may see the root of the problem Sheldon? but keep it polite please so that we do not get accused of bullying? thanks.

by polyglide Fri May 01, 2015 10:26 am

Stu,
A while back I gave you my opinions on several subjects and requested you reply with your opinions, I am still waiting, all you appear to do is agree with Dr, Sheldon.

You say I do not understand science, then tell me which science you are talking about.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Fri May 01, 2015 12:57 pm

You don't understand the basics of how science works. You haven't a clue about evolution as you're busy proving in another thread.

Why is this answer unacceptable?

We could try paleontology as your display on this field has been equally absurd?

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Fri May 01, 2015 1:00 pm

Polyglide, you still haven't said which part of the thread topic you're claiming stu doesn't understand.

by stuart torr Fri May 01, 2015 1:21 pm

Sorry to say Sheldon all of it, as he only wishes to speak to myself and not you, and the conversation would not stick to the thread I am afraid.

by stuart torr Fri May 01, 2015 8:34 pm

OK I have visited the thread earlier so please stop stopping my replies from the posters coming through to me as it is sheer pettiness whoever is doing it. Also very vindictive as I had already visited the thread, I had to go through nearly all the threads so that the replies got to me earlier as someone had switched me off from getting replies to them all.

by Sponsored content