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.
 

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.

boatlady,
I do not know about you but I am more interested in the world now and the future than in scientists who study old bones and fossils etc.

Because is not a certainty that the means of calculating many things are correct.

Carbon dating depends on a continual and even reaction throughout and this has not been clearly established as some scientists have stated and a similar situation applies in other areas.

Of course there has been dinosaurs, the latest ones according to the scientists involved were 60 meters long and weighed 90 tons. [ a few steaks there then].

I am fully aware of what the scientists say regarding the past life of both animal and plant life and it does indeed pose questions regarding the history in terms of dates regarding the Bible.

However, I have a problem regarding the beggining in respect of present day mankind.

You can have many periods of events prior to the beggining of another event and this may be the case in this matter, so I am not at all interested in old bones, I am more interested in the present state of the world.

A little off topic perhaps, but this caught my eye.

Polyglide wrote: Carbon dating depends on a continual and even reaction throughout and this has not been clearly established as some scientists have stated and a similar situation applies in other areas.

Carbon dating techniques have of course improved and are currently not only our best dating techniques but is also extremely accurate over enormous timescales. So I'm afraid your objection here is very wrong. I'd certainly not find criticism of its techniques very compelling based on its contradiction of biblical dates as these hardly constitute anything like the rigorously tested scientific evidence we're talking about.

Why the change of heart about dinosaurs, did you see one? That was after all your only criteria in a previous post for accepting they existed?

MY MY Sheldon, did one do a dump in his back garden.

PGs reluctance to accept carbon dating Sheldon, is because it goes against his biblical dates, which says that the Dinosaur existed before most events in the bible long long before, therefore making the bible a pack of lies.

Well Polyglide's refusal to accept scientific facts is well enough documented in these threads.  What dismantles his claims is scientific rigour,  but what exposes the irrational and inconsistent arguments he uses is the fact that like all creationists he cherry pick which parts of scientific fact he wants to acknowledge.

Even the foremost experts in the various scientific fields are not deferred to outside of testable empirical evidence and the scientific process. So his claims are quite obviously risible.

As I pointed out some time ago,  but he ignored it completely of course,  science rewards those whose research falsifies hypothesies as much as those that confirm them. So given that Darwinian evolution is the most scrutinised and well evidenced theory science has his argument simply dissolves against the fact that it has never been falsified in over 150 years of scientific scrutiny.

Of course he thinks he can then redefine evolution, again this nonsense speaks for itself as it would again have falsified Darwinian evolution and no such thing has happened.

His last and lamest creationist argument against scientific fact is to claim evolution doesn't show any evidence for the origins of life. He is determined to ignore the fact it never ever claimed to. Neither of course do the theories of relativity and gravity, does that make them false?

Hi, Stu,
I have explained that the referal to dinosaurs in a previous post was a wind up, anyone with common sense would have realised the fact.

Darwin's theory of evolution so far as I am concerned is self evident and needed no explanation.

You put either plant life or animal life in an unnatural situation and you get unnatural results.

Both will evolve within the circumstances prevailing, none will turn into anything other than either a mutation, which in the majority of cases will die and certainly not produce it's like, or a hybrid to which the same applies.

There is nothing, as I have stated several times, untoward about evolution just the manner in which some people approach it.

The whole problem is not what happens now but where everything originated from.

I have explained the possibility regarding the beginning of anything.

You can have numerous events prior to the begining of another event and this may explain the Bible records regarding the beginning

Polyglide wrote: Hi, Stu,
I have explained that the referal to dinosaurs in a previous post was a wind up, anyone with common sense would have realised the fact.

I'm disinclined to believe you, after all it's no more bizarre than the many other claims you've made to misrepresent scientific fact.

That aside perhaps you'd car to explain why the biblical account of creation claims all the animals were created by divine magic in go, and doesn't even mention the hundreds of millions of years of dinosaur evolution your deity purportedly indulged for no apparent reason?

Polyglide wrote: Darwin's theory of evolution so far as I am concerned is self evident and needed no explanation.

Whilst you're entitled to an opinion it's not really relevant here as Darwinian evolution has been tested and validated by 150 years of the most rigorous scientific scrutiny. Though it's odd you claim this now when we all have read your many contrary claims in multiple threads on here. You're either very confused or very dishonest, or both perhaps?

Here we see you utterly contradict the claim yet again.

Polyglide wrote: Both will evolve within the circumstances prevailing, none will turn into anything other than either a mutation, which in the majority of cases will die and certainly not produce it's like, or a hybrid to which the same applies.

You don't seem to grasp these two claims are mutually exclusive.

Polyglide wrote: There is nothing, as I have stated several times, untoward about evolution just the manner in which some people approach it.

The only person contradicting or denying the theory of evolution is you. Based on what I have no idea, some facile idea you've concocted to preserve faith in a creation myth that is otherwise demonstrably wrong. Self delusion isn't evidence, and it certainly is no match for the rigour of scientific scrutiny.

Stu,
My car is a Ford Fusion with all the latest gadgets.

Polyglide wrote: I have explained the possibility regarding the beginning of anything.

You've made sweeping and unevidenced claims based on a mixture of biblical myths and your own unevidenced beliefs and opinions. This hardly constitutes an explanation of anything.

Polyglide wrote: You can have numerous events prior to the begining of another event and this may explain the Bible records regarding the beginning

The biblical myth of genesis claims to be the beginning of everything. The universe and this planet and all life. We know this is provably wrong. Evolution makes no claims about how life originated but flatly refutes the biblical account of everything we now see being conjured into existence in one go. You're trying to wave this fact away. It's very weak argument to simply rely on wishful thinking and outright denial of known facts.

polyglide wrote:Stu,
   My car is a Ford Fusion with all the latest gadgets.

Don't you doubt the science behind it? Or is that only when science unearths facts that disprove biblical claims?

Sheldon, do you think that Polyglide should be driving a car? especially one with all the latest gadgets? surely science had something to do with that did it not? sure he should just walk everywhere as science had something to do with the invention of the wheel also so that would rule out horse and cart would it not?

Stu,
I do not have a clue why you think I do not believe that science has not provided many thigs, both good and bad.

At no time have I disputed this.

The only reason a car can be made is because God provided the materials and man learned how to utilise them, as with everything else.

As for scientists, I keep up to date and not deal in theories that are just that.

The latest findings being that every galaxy has a large Black Hole and several thousand smaller ones.

The three scientists who are dealing with this matter came to one conclusion.

We are at square one, and have to start again with the prospect of Einsteins theory being a load of rubbish.

The only way in which things will move forward, in their opinion, is through quantum machanics being involved

So much for theories.

Stu,
If you are unable to comprehend a post it is far better to ask someone to explain the contents, it may help you to press the correct keys in response.

Stu,
Got it, you have lost it, hope you recover, perhaps Dr, Sheldon could help.

Stu,
Keep smilin, it does help.

regards.

polyglide wrote: As for scientists, I keep up to date and not deal in theories that are just that.

Again this implies that a theory should be interpreted as just a guess or a hunch, whereas in science, the term theory is used very differently. The statement implies that theories become facts, in some sort of linear progression. In science, theories never become facts. Rather, theories explain facts. The third misconception is that scientific research provides proof in the sense of attaining the absolute truth. Scientific knowledge is always tentative and subject to revision should new evidence come to light.

polyglide wrote: The latest findings being that every galaxy has a large Black Hole and several thousand smaller ones. The three scientists who are dealing with this matter came to one conclusion.

In your excitement you have forgotten to link the research for these "latest findings", and you've again neglected to name these "scientists" and of course you haven't cited any peer reviewed publications. Now call me an old cynic, but given your appalling track record on here for making up lies and assigning them to science in a puerile attempt to deride science in general in favour of bronze age superstition I'm not sure we should be throwing Einstein's work out just yet, but then I'm not a physicist, or a polymath like you.

Polyglide was actually telling the truth there regarding the black holes Sheldon.
They vary in size from the biggest the SMBH super massive black hole, the IBH the intermediary black hole medium sized ones and the smaller black holes,and our galaxy has several hundred of each,and maybe more of the smaller ones. they suck things in with there gravitational pull plus more but I did not read on.

stuart torr wrote:Polyglide was actually telling the truth there regarding the black holes Sheldon.
They vary in size from the biggest the SMBH  super massive black hole, the IBH the intermediary black hole medium sized ones and the smaller black holes,and our galaxy has several hundred of each,and maybe more of the smaller ones. they suck things in with there gravitational pull plus more but I did not read on.

He likes to blend the odd fact with fiction, but I'm fairly sure he was using the claims facetiously to deride science, again.

nevermind he got us both that is why I checked him out mate,didn't know you had written about him until I had finished checking.

I think there will be a nice long post written to one or both of us Sheldon,as it has been quiet on the polyglide front has it not for the last couple of days?

Stu,
Thank you for actually having the decency to look into the matter of the Black Holes.

It is a sad day when a person who claims to be intelligent thinks nothing is of any consequence if it has not been subject to a Grammy Award or similar and dismisses the findings of the scientists who are most up to date.

The Black holes are actually responsible for the activity of stars either by assisting or denying their formation.

The original thinking was that nothing could escape from a black hole but apparently they produce high winds that affect the outside world etc;

The scientists who were discussing the matter said the study was in it's infancy and had all the prospects of blowing apart all past theories etc;

I like to keep up to date and not live in the past regarding what mankind thinks, I get many a laugh when the ill informed have not a clue at what is the present circumstances and rabbit on about hypothecies as if that is all they can do.

Up to date fnarrr. Not living in the past fnarrr. Best of all the lesser known spelling of hypothesies with a c.


Pmlmao. You are funny, I'll give you that, even if you do make up endless lies and misrepresent what others have posted.

I've only read one poster on here denying scientific facts, and that is you polyglide.

Any mention of black holes in the biblical account of creation? Odd that a being with omniscience and omnipotence would leave out facts like these and evolution and dinosaurs in favour of talking snakes and magic apples.

Unless of course the whole thing was made up by ignorant bronze age humans. It then suddenly makes sense.....

Stu,
Please tell your friend that there is a difference between fact and theory.

Stu,
Stephen Hawkins, February 2015, News and Comment, the latest on black holes, very interesting.

regards.

If only you had any friends you might not so often confuse the two. Maybe you could ask the librarian?


While you're at it ask if they can explain the difference between the word theory and a scientific theory as you seem woefully unable to learn this fairly simple distinction.

Are you really 80? I find it unlikely judging from your childish penchant for name calling and ad hominem. And this remarkably childish act of pretending to ignore someone's posts when you are quite clearly responding every single time. They give the impression of a sulking petulant teenager more than an octogenarian to be honest.


Any thoughts on the actual thread topic or the post contents? Or is this childish tantrum all we can expect?

polyglide wrote:Stu,
   Stephen Hawkins, February 2015, News and Comment, the latest on black holes, very interesting.

                                            regards.

Does he make any reference as to why monotheistic religions are so aggressive towards each other and toward atheism?

Polytheistic religions were no more real of course but they had the advantage of being necessarily more tolerant of other deities than the more aggressive monotheistic religions.

Some very interesting points raised in the book "The Portable Atheist "

Professor Stephen Hawking is of course a well know atheist. Perhaps you didn't know this.

Stu,
If a well known idiot told me that my house was on fire, I would at least look into it.

regards.

Sheldon as I mentioned earlier on this thread,polyglide is actually correct regarding the black holes, as I checked the item out,and found out that there are many large medium and small black holes.

stuart torr wrote:Sheldon as I mentioned earlier on this thread,polyglide is actually correct regarding the black holes, as I checked the item out,and found out that there are many large medium and small black holes.

I never said otherwise stu, his point however is to try and claim that because scientific knowledge is tentative and not absolute it can't be trusted, and it's this I have taken him to task over, and anyone making such a claim ought not to claim to understand let alone be keeping abreast of all the latest scientific knowledge. They certainly ought not to bandy words like stupid around all the time either. He seems however to have reverted to type anyway and has even stopped making ludicrous claims in favour of childish ad hominem.

It is sciences ability and willingness to accept evidence and discard any idea claim hypothesis or even a scientific theory if that evidence requires it that makes it our best method for uncovering knowledge, and of course vastly superior to religion which by it's nature deals in absolutes that are doggedly clung to even when the evidence has completely refuted it. Take polyglide's ludicrous denials of scientific facts like evolution in favour of bronze age creationist dogma as one obvious example.

polyglide wrote:Stu,
    If a well known idiot told me that my house was on fire, I would at least look into it.

                                regards.

Relevance to the thread? Your trolling is becoming more and more obvious, get on topic or don't bother.

polyglide wrote:Stu,
    Please tell your friend that there is a difference between fact and theory.

This again implies that a theory should be interpreted as just a guess or a hunch, whereas in science, the term theory is used very differently. It also implies that theories become facts, in some sort of linear progression. In science, theories never become facts. Rather, theories explain facts. Another misconception is that scientific research provides proof in the sense of attaining the absolute truth. Scientific knowledge is always tentative and subject to revision should new evidence come to light.

I understand your point now Sheldon, and why you are taking polyglide to task over certain items in the posts.

Stu,
I have said all along that theories are just that, theories, they are ideas put forward in an attempt to explain something that poses a problem and they are nothing more or less.

If eventually they do prove to be fact then the subject matter becomes verifiable, I see no reason to argue on this point at all and I have never disputed the facts.

Stu,
Tentative and absolute, the mind boggles.

At no time have I ever said that any scientific opinion should not be considered.

It should be considered along with all the relevant circumstances and to consistantly claim that someone does not do so, when in fact he is more up to date with the present scientific opinions and findings is ignorant in the extreem.