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 polyglide Tue May 19, 2015 11:12 am

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.

by Norm Deplume Tue May 19, 2015 11:17 am

polyglide wrote:
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.

Are you aware that black holes are predicted by the General Theory of Relativity? Their existence supports Einstein's theories.
The idea that every galaxy has a super-massive black hole at its centre is not particularly new in terms of physics. I have certainly been aware of it for at least 30 years and I am not a scientist.
The term "black hole" itself dates back to 1964, while the mathematical solution derived from Einstein's theory deriving a Schwarzschild black hole was first published in 1916 (by Karl Schwarzschild).

The ball is not in square one but somewhere in the other half of the field and closing in on the goal.

by polyglide Tue May 19, 2015 11:48 am

Norm Deplume,
I do understand your comments and would respectfully suggest you read Stephen Hawkins latest ideas on this matter, News and Comments Feb. 2015, I do not think there are any later relevant matters.

I also agree that matters are progressing faster than at any other time, the problem being, will it be for the better?.

regards.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue May 19, 2015 11:58 am

polyglide wrote: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.

No one has ever disagreed so this is a straw man argument. However you are rather stupidly trying to apply the same definition to a scientific theory which has a completely different meaning. It's baffling why you think you can tell such a clumsy bare faced lie and think you can convince anyone when all they have to do is Google the definition themselves or read my multiple posts quoting it. Science determines what a scientific theory is, not some pompous supercilious creationist who can't accept facts that destroy part of their religious beliefs.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue May 19, 2015 12:02 pm

polyglide wrote:Norm Deplume,
I do understand your comments and would respectfully suggest you read Stephen Hawkins latest ideas on this matter, News and Comments Feb. 2015, I do not think there are any later relevant matters.

I also agree that matters are progressing faster than at any other time, the problem being, will it be for the better?.

regards.

Do you or do you not know that Einstein's theory of relativity predicts black holes? Or would you like us to quote your post claiming their predicted presence now meant that theory should be discarded?

At least have the integrity to acknowledge that your claim was wrong when it's shown to be so.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue May 19, 2015 12:04 pm

polyglide wrote: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.

You are lying. You've persistently claimed Darwinian species evolution is untrue based on no scientifically validated evidence. We know this as it would have been falsified and discarded amid massive world wide publicity if your ridiculous claim were true.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue May 19, 2015 12:07 pm

polyglide wrote: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.

It appears you're still struggling with reading and understanding basic sentences defining well established scientific concepts, methods and definitions. So we'll go again for the slow learner.

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.

by polyglide Tue May 19, 2015 3:07 pm

Norm Deplume,
I forgot to mention the debate I witnessed between three scientists regarding Einstein's theory and the up to date findings regarding Black Holes and their influences etc;

This was within the last few weeks.

The three all agreed that we were back at square one with all to play for.

In my opinion it is like having all the ingredients for a bonfire and having no means of lighting it.

by polyglide Tue May 19, 2015 3:18 pm

Stu,
I do not know if you appreciate contradiction in terms.

Theories never become facts, of course they do not, they are attempts to prove that something unknown is the result of X, Y, or Z.

The resulting examination of a theory can in some cases be verified as correct on all counts and then that in question can be classed as a fact.

Of course any theory not verifiable can be added to or changed along the way in an attempt to verify it and until it can be verified it is a theory.

No amount of ridiculous scientific jargon will alter the above.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue May 19, 2015 3:19 pm

Again this doesn't seem to have any salient connection to the thread topic, it's also unclear what point, if any, you're making.

It is of course worth noting again that the opinion of scientists is not necessarily the opinion of science, which requires evidence be validated by a rigorous process including peer review.

It's also tedious to have to point out yet again that you've not named any of these "scientists" or linked any research. So again this post offers next to nothing in terms of evidence.

by polyglide Tue May 19, 2015 3:39 pm

To keep to the point,
There would be no contest between Atheism and God.

Atheists have nothing whatsoever to offer, God has everthing to offer.

by Norm Deplume Tue May 19, 2015 4:33 pm

polyglide wrote:Norm Deplume,
I forgot to mention the debate I witnessed between three scientists regarding Einstein's theory and the up to date findings regarding Black Holes and their influences etc;
This was within the last few weeks.
The three all agreed that we were back at square one with all to play for.
In my opinion it is like having all the ingredients for a bonfire and having no means of lighting it.

Please provide a link or more information on which to search. On past performance you are quite likely to have failed to understand the conversation and its implications.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue May 19, 2015 8:01 pm

polyglide wrote:To keep to the point,
There would be no contest between Atheism and God.

Atheists have nothing whatsoever to offer, God has everthing to offer.

Well who can compete with everthing (sic). You are truly the master of glib self congratulatory empty rhetoric, it's truly impressive in a rolling of the eyes and sighing type of way. No one doubts that humans can create appealing fantasies, even ones that are more appealing than reality in some ways, this doesn't make them true of course. Though for once I agree, there is no contest for me as atheism has the unbeatable appeal of being real.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue May 19, 2015 8:04 pm

Norm Deplume wrote:Please provide a link or more information on which to search. On past performance you are quite likely to have failed to understand the conversation and its implications.

Or to have made it up entirely, or to be deliberately misrepresenting it.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue May 19, 2015 8:12 pm

polyglide wrote:Stu, I do not know if you appreciate contradiction in terms. Theories never become facts, of course they do not, they are attempts to prove that something unknown is the result of X, Y, or Z. The resulting examination of a theory can in some cases be verified as correct on all counts and then that in question can be classed as a fact. Of course any theory not verifiable can be added to or changed along the way in an attempt to verify it and until it can be verified it is a theory. No amount of ridiculous scientific jargon will alter the above.

"The way that scientists use the word 'theory' is a little different than how it is commonly used in the lay public," said Jaime Tanner, a professor of biology at Marlboro College. "Most people use the word 'theory' to mean an idea or hunch that someone has, but in science the word 'theory' refers to the way that we interpret facts."

The process of becoming a scientific theory
Every scientific theory starts as a hypothesis. According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, a hypothesis is an idea that hasn't been proven yet. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step — known as a theory — in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon.

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation. As with most (if not all) forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and aim for predictive power and explanatory capability.
The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain, and to its elegance and simplicity (Occam's razor). As additional scientific evidence is gathered, a scientific theory may be rejected or modified if it does not fit the new empirical findings- in such circumstances, a more accurate theory is then desired and free of confirmation bias. In certain cases, the less-accurate unmodified scientific theory can still be treated as a theory if it is useful (due to its sheer simplicity) as an approximation under specific conditions (e.g. Newton's laws of motion as an approximation to special relativity at velocities which are small relative to the speed of light).
Scientific theories are testable and make falsifiable predictions. They describe the causal elements responsible for a particular natural phenomenon, and are used to explain and predict aspects of the physical universe or specific areas of inquiry (e.g. electricity, chemistry, astronomy). Scientists use theories as a foundation to gain further scientific knowledge, as well as to accomplish goals such as inventing technology or curing disease. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.This is significantly different from the common usage of the word "theory", which implies that something is a conjecture, hypothesis, or guess (i.e., unsubstantiated and speculative).

by stuart torr Tue May 19, 2015 8:43 pm

I have decided to keep out of this one for the time being Sheldon,and,Norm, because you two kind folks do not get polyglides posts all posted to you do you? or even the occasional private message.
I will observe from a distance, and join in when I feel it is needed ok, sorry for this,but I wish to reduce my admiration posts. geek

by polyglide Wed May 20, 2015 3:09 pm

Stu,
Sorry you are opting out for a while.

I cannot understand why my personal posts to you are not getting through.

Over the past few weeks several have not done so.

Can someone over-ride them? if so for what purpose because they are supposed to be private?

by polyglide Wed May 20, 2015 3:13 pm

Stu,
I have tried again to day with no luck I think.

by stuart torr Wed May 20, 2015 3:26 pm

You actually managed that time polyglide,and I have replied ok.

by stuart torr Fri May 22, 2015 8:33 pm

Why suddenly since I have stopped posting in this thread, has all others stopped also?

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Mon May 25, 2015 11:30 am

stuart torr wrote:Why suddenly since I have stopped posting in this thread, has all others stopped also?

Not sure stu, I think the thread question was predicated on a subjective and dishonest definition of what atheism represents, and many have said so, and evidenced their views. I suspect JP Cusik was trolling anyway. I think the truth is that atheism is defined perfectly well in the dictionary, and beyond that what ever an individual or a group of atheists want to believe is not demanded by or even defined by atheism, which is defined as nothing more than the rejection of the belief in a deity, and no more a belief itself than not accepting unicorns as real is a belief, or than modern monotheists, Muslims, Jews, and Christians all each hold a separate belief for their rejection of every deity and religion that humans have ever created including Thor, Zeus, Apollo, and Baal etc..

by stuart torr Mon May 25, 2015 2:02 pm

It happens on several threads though Sheldon, and I think was it something I said. Laughing

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sat May 30, 2015 9:27 pm

JP Cusick wrote: 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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJnRJvTx4uQ

Live long & prosper........

I seem to have consumed more fermented alcohol than is prudent, and I don't even remotely care....... sarcasm

by stuart torr Sat May 30, 2015 9:32 pm

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sun May 31, 2015 7:11 pm

JP Cusick wrote:It is Atheism against God but God is not against Atheism. It is important to give a general definition of Atheism as like on Wikipedia HERE.

Why is it important? I suspect you it's important because you disingenuously wish to attach motives to atheists that the definition does not support. I love Wikipedia but would never use it as my only source for anything without outside corroboration precisely because it can edited by anyone. So lets look at Merriam Webster which defines atheism thus:

Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

That strikes me as more of a general definition of atheism than your rather subjective hijacking of Wikipedia. Which also defines atheism in the first sentence as "Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities." So neither defintion supports your subjective claim.

JP Cusick wrote:Atheism is a negative concept, as in saying "no" as in no God, no Deity, no conscious higher power, etc.

Again your on link and the OED do not support your disingenuous redefining of the word, it's axiomatic that atheism denies belief in the existence of a deity, beyond that the dishonest guff about it being a "negative concept" is rather pointless as beyond petty point scoring it tells us more about how you view atheism and atheists than about atheism itself.

JP Cusick wrote: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.

Atheism by definition regards the Christian and Muslim religions precisely as it regards all others, as being based on the false premise that a deity exists. Unlike you I shan't pretend to know what motivates every atheist on the planet, but can speak for myself and say categorically that this is solely what my own atheism involves.

JP Cusick wrote:I myself declare the real existence of the "Creator Father God

Well bully for you, but so what?

JP Cusick wrote:My view is that Atheism is simply a form of self-righteousness,

Then one wonders why you bother introducing any proper definitions of the word if the sole purpose of your post is to arbitrarily deny them and use your own extremely negatively biased view, simply to derogate people for not sharing your own beliefs. This dishonest and subjective claim of course is not supported by any of the evidence, but then you haven't attempted to provide any, perhaps we can see why. The prison populations don't abound with a disproportionate amount of atheists after all, so obviously your using your own bias to determine what is righteous anyway, making your claim pretty worthless.

by polyglide Mon Jun 01, 2015 2:17 pm

JP Cusick,
There is no real purpose in attempting to bring realism to a person whose only concern is that which scientists have considered and had their findings published etc.

Atheists by definition are people who have no faith, very little to offer the world, other than selfishness because they see only the present and think there is no future.

There are numerous scientists who are not atheists and although not all Christians behave in the manner expected of them, the true Christians are a true example of how mankind should behave.

I suspect you it's important, Dr, Sheldon.

Our prisons are full of either atheists or fallen believers, no true Christian would do anything demanding going to prison unless it was in the name of God, by doing his work.

The accepted meaning of righteousness to most people would be doing what is right, it may be disputable what is right, however, that is another matter.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Mon Jun 01, 2015 2:20 pm

As hilariously stupid as ever. I'm a little disappointed you didn't try to violate the dictionary definition of atheism a litke more though. Half a point deducted for this slip in your usual standard of trolling.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Mon Jun 01, 2015 2:26 pm

Polyglide wrote: The accepted meaning of righteousness to most people would be doing what is right, it may be disputable what is right, however, that is another matter.

If you didn't have the reading capacity of a five year old then you might have understood that this was precisely the objection I was raising to Cusick's arbitrary claim. Unfortunately there's more chance of a five year old grasping such concepts than you.

by polyglide Mon Jun 01, 2015 2:39 pm

Stu,
I am pleased Dr, Sheldon thinks I have the reading capacity of someone older than his own appreciation of the written word.[One year old and that is being kind]

There is nothing in any of his posts that says what I have said about righteousness, he is just in a little world of his own.

by stuart torr Mon Jun 01, 2015 2:52 pm

Polyglide so our prisons are only full of people doing the work of god are they?
Paedophiles are doing the work of god are they? so god was a peadophile.
Murdering innocent people,so god murdered innocent people?
Rapists,so god was a rapist?
Not a very nice guy this god of yours is he.

by polyglide Mon Jun 01, 2015 3:35 pm

Stu,
You have misread my post.

I said the only time a True Christian would end up in jail is if he/she had been jailed for doing God's work as many have been throughout history.

This has nothing whatsoever to do with the others in jail for different reasons.

Christians have been killed for preaching etc; etc;

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Mon Jun 01, 2015 6:47 pm

stuart torr wrote:Polyglide so our prisons are only full of people doing the work of god are they?
Paedophiles are doing the work of god are they? so god was a peadophile.
Murdering innocent people,so god murdered innocent people?
Rapists,so god was a rapist?
Not a very nice guy this god of yours is he.

He's using the "No true Scotsman" logical fallacy again stu. I almost can't be bothered to point and laugh, but here is a reasonably thorough but concise explanation of it from Wikipedia.

"No true Scotsman is an informal fallacy, an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion.[1] When faced with a counterexample to a universal claim ("no Scotsman would do such a thing"), rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original universal claim, this fallacy modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it by rhetoric, without reference to any specific objective rule ("no true Scotsman would do such a thing")."

Put simply since he claimed moral superiority for those who share his religious beliefs over atheists, and I pointed out that there are plenty of Christians in jail for all manner of immoral behaviour, he denied they are Christians by the use of rhetoric, i.e. "no true Christian would behave in such a way." It's logically fallacious, because rather than denying the counterexample which he can't as there is numerous studies of jail populations to evidence that Christians are at least as likely to break the law as atheists, or rejecting his original claim that Christians are morally superior, he modifies the subject of the assertion, which are the Christians in jail for immoral behaviour, so as to exclude them as an example, this of course leaves only Christians who fit the criteria of morally superior individuals by default. Though of course our resident expert debater and religious apologist won't ever acknowledge that that this logical fallacy exists, let alone that he has used it numerous times. I could just as easily deny that the atheists in jail are atheists, as no true atheist would behave as badly as theists that are in there, it's absurd of course but he clearly doesn't understand why.

I'm irresistibly reminded of a naughty small child that genuinely believes you can't see it because it has covered it's own eyes and can't see you. Just as Polyglide thinks ignoring that his idiotic claim being exposed means it hasn't actually been exposed at all. It is both sad and hilarious in equal measure. I look forward to more petty childish ad hominem from him to compensate. Laughing

by polyglide Tue Jun 02, 2015 11:56 am

Dr, Sheldon,
A person is in jail for stealing, another for murder, a further one for abuse of a child or adult etc;

How any sane person can relate this to a Christian jailed for a belief is beyond any reasonable explanation.

Unless of course you start saying ones genes are involved and you cannot help what you do etc; etc;

In which case no one is responsible for anything they do.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Jun 02, 2015 12:13 pm

You simply can't read can you. It's beyond tedious now to have to spell out every point each and every time you fail to understand it.

If christian beliefs provided superior morals AS YOU CLAIMED, then this would be reflected in just such research into prison population demographics.

Dumbing it down as much as I can for you.

If 90% of the population are christian and 10% atheistic (just as an easy example) And the prison populations show the same percentage that would not indicate superior morals for either group. All the research shows however that prison population have a larger percentage of Christians than the general population. Of course there may be other factors at play but the research in no way bears out your claim. Unless you set an arbitrary subjective standard for moral behaviour, or use fallacious reasoning as you did by using a well known logical fallacy called the no true Scotsman fallacy.

Why not Google it for yourself instead of doggedly refusing to acknowledge your error. You'd look a lot less foolish. If of course that even factors in your thought process, and your posts don't show that you're even aware of it.

by stuart torr Tue Jun 02, 2015 12:43 pm

He thinks no christians commit those crimes that I pointed out to him Sheldon, only atheists, utter bull.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Jun 02, 2015 1:14 pm

stuart torr wrote:He thinks no christians commit those crimes that I pointed out to him Sheldon, only atheists, utter bull.

He's redefining Christianity to allow this claim. That is the logical fallacy no true Scotsman. He's fooling no one with this, as there is ample research into prison population demographics that prove him wrong.

You can't claim Christians don't rape steal and murder on the one hand, then when it's proved the jails are full of Christians who've done just those crimes claim this stops them being christian. Unfortunately I genuinely don't think he understands why such a claim is logically fallacious.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Jun 02, 2015 10:31 pm

Now I have a little time I will link some of the salient research.

Here's a statement from one piece of research from the states:

"Note that atheists, being a moderate proportion of the USA population (about 8-16%) are disproportionately less in the prison populations (0.21%)."

http://www.holysmoke.org/icr-pri.htm

New research suggests that the percentage of atheists in the US prison population is more than was previously thought, but still disproportionately lower than in the general population. Even if it matched the general population of course this would still refute Cusick, and Polyglide's claims to theists moral ascendancy.

by polyglide Wed Jun 03, 2015 10:59 am

Stu,
Christians are as liable to fail as anyone else and I have never claimed anything other.

It would be very interesting to know how many people are actually atheists as opposed to those who have no opinion and those involved in one religion or another.

If you take the whole world population I feel there are more involved in one religion or another than atheism.

Humans being what they are will sin in one way or another irrespective of their belief or lack of.

The fact is that there are more crimes etc; never solved nor reported than those that are.

To generalise is silly to say the least.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed Jun 03, 2015 7:21 pm

polyglide wrote:Stu,
Christians are as liable to fail as anyone else and I have never claimed anything other.

by polyglide on Mon Jun 01, 2015 4:35 pm
the only time a True Christian would end up in jail is if he/she had been jailed for doing God's work

Post by polyglide on Mon Jun 01, 2015 3:17 pm
Our prisons are full of either atheists or fallen believers, no true Christian would do anything demanding going to prison

Ho hum.... Rolling Eyes

That last one is a blatant lie as well, all the research indicates that the percentage of atheist in jail populations is smaller than it is in the general populations. I already linked the research.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed Jun 03, 2015 7:32 pm

polyglide wrote: Humans being what they are will sin in one way or another irrespective of their belief or lack of.

Polyglide wrote: To generalise is silly to say the least.

Cor blimey oh riley.....

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed Jun 03, 2015 7:36 pm

polyglide wrote: To generalise is silly to say the least.

Polyglide wrote: by polyglide on Mon Jun 01, 2015 3:17 pm
Atheists by definition are people who have very little to offer the world, other than selfishness

I fear another irony meter is about to head for the tip..... Rolling Eyes

by Sponsored content