Absolutely Nothing: Atheists on What They Know About What They Pretend to Discuss

[Write4U]

I would put it stronger at deliberately sneaky

1½ up from tricky

Michael, you do have a scientific mind....

 

[paddoboy]

Darwinism: the theory of the evolution of species by natural selection advanced by Charles Darwin.

Theory (science); A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results.

a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation, in contrast with a hypothesis or theory, which is intended to explain or interpret facts.

Where have I invented new meanings for these words?

Correct and no argument. At least we finally drag that out of you.
Perhaps if you weren't so apparently secretive and obscure about where you are actually coming from? Obviously also I'm not the first to comment on this apparent secretive, evasive style of yours.

But what do you mean by “ there’s no harm being done”?

This.....

You’re correct. It makes no difference .

In other words, your apparent evasive style [imo] is not affecting the little children that maybe watching/reading this.

That it is regarded as a fact, makes no difference as to whether or not it is a fact. One thing is sure.
It is a belief. Because based on the above definitions, it cannot be known.

It's a fact by any reasonable definition of the word, and despite the fact that not everyone will accept it as fact....you know, the trolls, those with religious/ID baggage etc.
It still remains fact.

Really?
You see treating people decently, and without ridicule, a problem?

You need to lighten up mate.
If it bothers you so much, we could focus on another topic. I don’t mind.
But there is no need to get to the point where have to treat me in an indecent manner, or ridicule me.

I give back what I receive Jan, and again, I'm not the first to comment on your tricky evasive style......Lighten up? Not at all. I just care somewhat for the little children that may fall for your "tricky style"

You are asking for evidence of the origin of everything, including yourself, and the ability to make the question. You are acting as though the origin of everything is not the origin of everything.
God makes the claim, via scripture, that He is the origin of everything. So you either accept that claim, or not.

What's wrong with that? That's science, that's the scientific methodology. Evidence is required to validate your deity, whoever that deity is.
And obviously while even science as yet does not know the origin of everything, there is some interesting speculation, concerning the quantum foam being as close to nothing as is possible to get, and effectively nothing...check out Professor Lawrence Krauss.
In the meantime some wise words from the greatest educator of our time in my opinion of course!

This idea of evidence for God, is an atheist endeavour,

No, its the way science works and part of the scientific methodology...and what many have been asking you for over 44 pages now.

where theists enjoy the challenge of trying to answer their questions.

I prefer the challenge of understanding the evidence we have for the BB, and how the universe evolved, I prefer the awesome wonder of the evidence that the observable universe we occupy is filled with an uncountable number of planets and stars, many billions of galaxies over an expanse of around 94 billionL/years diameter, I prefer the awe and mystery as to what lies beyond that expanse, I prefer the incredible insight of Darwinism and the theory of evolution of life.
I prefer all that to making up and/or accepting a myth just because some things are beyond our understanding at this time.
Worth noting also Jan, when contemplating the wonders and awe of the universe, that if it wasn't that way, we probably would not have evolved to enjoy it. We call it "The Anthropic Principal"

 

[Jan Ardena]

Correct and no argument. At least we finally drag that out of you.

No no no! Paddoboboy.
You made an accusation.
Please show where I have invented new terms for these word.

 

[paddoboy]

No no no! Paddoboboy.
You made an accusation.
Please show where I have invented new terms for these word.

The accusation stands. But as I have said, it is over 44 pages, and as others have also inferred.
take it easy ol son.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

1½ up from tricky

On a scale of 1 to ?.

But that's a different discussion for the other

It seems the op could allow it as a demonstration that some folk know about what they pretend to discuss.
Alex

 

[Michael 345]

Michael, you do have a scientific mind....

My 3 neurone brain, Huey, Dewey and Louie, thank you for your compliment

On a scale of 1 to ?.

1 to 10 sneaky being 4

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

I don’t believe the universe has an infinite past.

Do you believe God has an infinite past?

Do you think it does?

What I think is not required in determining what you believe.

I believe in God.
It’s really that simple.

I am inclined to believe you.

I sense sarcasm.

I thought you may think, being a read between the lines guy, that I was being sarcastic...but in truth I was not..I planned to list wars with religion at their center and I realised to do so is not as easy as one could think ....and I could not think of a single one that did not require me to review what I knew so as not to make a false or unsupported claim and I did not feel like looking up religious wars and making a list...my statement was certainly without sarcasm when I made it, and I certainly was more interested in avoiding sidecracking you.

However clearly either of us could goggle "religious wars" and find a couple I expect. Wars and the reasons that they are fought are often complex and I expect some wars on the face of things may appear religious but we find it boils down to money and power and religion is invoked merely to motivate the gullible masses.

Because of your view of ancient history.

The history I present is clear and I reject that one can form a particular view really.

Why would I believe it?
Or why do you believe it?

Because my simple proposition somewhat represents what the science tells us moreover it represents a scientific theory or model that is the best we have...if you wish to present a better scientific model that is available for you to do. I note that there are some "scientists" working on an ID model but as yet all recognise their model is unable to replace the current model that traces the appearance of and evolution of the various species.
Until the ID model replaces the current model it can not be taught in schools indicating it's lack of establishment and indeed validity.
Nevertheless you may hold ID as your view.

I did have some books which I lost in Bush fires many years ago that would enable me to identify the specifics but for the present I don't feel like researching it all again..not something that one could do in a casual approach to reference specifics that I find compelling.

The difficulty for ID is in the detail, perhaps in providing an explanation of how all species appeared more or less at once.

I expect you believe, given your point about the apparent finding of soft tissue that the world is much younger than science provides in its time scale for the Earth.

Once religions could make unsupported claims but in the age of science the necessity to back up claims is now with us. Unfortunately religion can not meet the requirements of science and so "Dawinism" rules supreme.
Alex

 

[paddoboy]

Do you believe God has an infinite past?

I'll bet my balls he'll come back with some weird reasoning, and words to the effect, "But Alex, that is the definition of god,an omnipotent, all powerful infinite being, existing apart from the universe....blah blah blah.....and he'll expect you to accept that this is evidence for god.

 

[Write4U]

However clearly either of us could goggle "religious wars" and find a couple I expect. Wars and the reasons that they are fought are often complex and I expect some wars on the face of things may appear religious but we find it boils down to money and power and religion is invoked merely to motivate the gullible masses.

Well, the fact that one can actually look up "religious wars" speaks volumes in and of itself. I tried to google scientific wars and came up with this:
Science wars

The science wars were a series of intellectual exchanges, between scientific realists and postmodernist critics, about the nature of scientific theory and intellectual inquiry. They took place principally in the United States in the 1990s in the academic and mainstream press.

Scientific realists (such as Norman Levitt, Paul R. Gross, Jean Bricmont and Alan Sokal) argued that scientific knowledge is real, and accused the postmodernists of having effectively rejected scientific objectivity, the scientific method, empiricism, and scientific knowledge. Postmodernists interpreted Thomas Kuhn's ideas about scientific paradigms to mean that scientific theories are social constructs, and philosophers like Paul Feyerabend argued that other, non-realist forms of knowledge production were better suited to serve people's personal and spiritual needs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_wars

Not quite as bloody as the Crusades.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

I'll bet my balls he'll come back with some weird reasoning, and words to the effect, "But Alex, that is the definition of god,an omnipotent, all powerful infinite being, existing apart from the universe....blah blah blah.....and he'll expect you to accept that this is evidence for god.

I am not sure that I would like to win against your proposition as the prospect of collecting my hypothetical winnings does not appeal.

I find it fascinating a theist could reject an eternal universe yet accept the unsupported proposition that an entity could exist that is eternal.

I find it curious that so much confidence is placed in their various holy books.

One could think that as holy books are written under Devine influence we could expect infallibility to be the norm rather than what we find by way of glaring mistakes or misunderstanding.

The hints through out the Bible that the Earth is flat I suppose is just a mere triffle to be overlooked and happily ignored by theists...well some of them. One wonders just how many flatearthers could be in the US given some 20% are fundamentalists taking a literal interpretation. That 20% apparently believe in Adam and Eve. Look at that rocket guy, now deceased, who funded his rocketry via Christian fundamentalists helping him to prove the Earth is flat like it said in the Bible.
To hold up say the Bible as a perfect standard for morality is rather odd when even a dedicated believer will reject what is advocated therein as what is demanded in the killing of various sinners...you know unruly children for example.

Killing is advocated for a wide variety of sins etc yet we as a society reject capital punishment, in Australia at least, but even elsewhere I doubt anyone kills the neighbour they find gathering sticks on the Sabbath.

I would think a good edit could produce a credible book worthy of universal respect.

Imagine a review of say a simple cook book how the critics would jump on just one error if found and how it's sales would be zero.

How long could we expect a medical text book to remain authority if it contained just one mistake. And perhaps it is this odd standard of ignoring the bad bits whilst declaring a Devine inspiration that is a glaring example of the casual approach to reason that you could think would have a rational person reject the book entirely. I could not have confidence in a cook book that suggested mercury to be a fine ingredient for a dish just as I could have no confidence in a book that calls upon me to kill my neighbour on a declared sacred day if I find him gathering sticks.

Alex

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Not quite as bloody as the Crusades

Funny I did not think of them...I think England had at least one religious war.

However religious wars form a small minority according to this guy, .wears his collar backwards which means he can be trusted. But he seems a nice chap and heck I want to believe him.
Jan will like this guy.
I thought it fair to show I can bat for either side now that I am neither a theists or an atheist....what could you call someone like me..realist..rationalist..scientistlist.
Check the video

Alex

 

[Jan Ardena]

The accusation stands. But as I have said, it is over 44 pages, and as others have also inferred.
take it easy ol son.

You cannot back up your accusation, because it is false.

 

[Write4U]

However religious wars form a small minority according to this guy

What religion is he talking about?

According to a study in 2015, Islam has 1.8 billion adherents, making up about 24.1% of the world population. Most Muslims are either of two denominations: Sunni (80–85%, roughly 1.5 billion people) or Shia (15-20%, roughly 240–340 million people).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_by_country

The Quran states,
The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter, Except for those who return repenting before you apprehend them. And know that Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.
— Qur'an, Sura 5, ayat 33 & 34

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_Islam

and Apostasy in Islam is punishable by death.

Until the late 19th century, the vast majority of Sunni and Shia jurists held that for adult men, apostasy from Islam was a crime as well as a sin, an act of treason punishable with the death penalty

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam

and for a few more nice bloody religious conflicts:

Warfare by Islamic forces before 1918

• 3.1Islam in the Iberian Peninsula
• 3.2Crusades
• 3.3South Asia
• 3.4Barbary Pirates
• 3.5Ottoman Empire
• 3.6Central Asia and Afghanistan
• 3.7Wahabbists

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_war

What our dear Father Mike Schmitz doesn't say is that while there have been more wars for other reasons, religious wars have taken more lives than the wars for all other causes combined.

However, if you widen responsibility to mean any mass atrocity caused by largely Christian societies regardless of motive[note 1] then the death toll of Christianity would ascend to 82.069 to 106.734 million deaths. This is more or less equal to the 85 to 100 million deaths from communism described in the "Black Book of Communism,"[1] that all get blamed on atheism regardless of other motives to the killings. This is what you'd be doing here if all of these deaths were blamed on Christianity alone.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Death_toll_of_Christianity

In my book that counts. Apologetics never want to admit the atrocities committed in the name of God.

I have heard of many causes for war, but I have never heard of a war in the cause of "No God".

 

[Jan Ardena]

Do you believe God has an infinite past?

The idea of the infinite, can be used to describe God.

What I think is not required in determining what you believe.

Nevertheless it is polite to respond to a question, in a discussion. But never mind.

However clearly either of us could goggle "religious wars" and find a couple I expect. Wars and the reasons that they are fought are often complex and I expect some wars on the face of things may appear religious but we find it boils down to money and power and religion is invoked merely to motivate the gullible masses.

I asked if thought wars were due to religion.

The history I present is clear and I reject that one can form a particular view really.

You seem to think that ancients were ignorant, and didn’t know where the sun went at night.
Why do you think that?

Because my simple proposition somewhat represents what the science tells us

You believe what some scientists tell you.
Therefore you don’t know that it is a fact.
Okay.

if you wish to present a better scientific model that is available for you to do.

I'm not a scientist.
ID is kicking darwinism ass right now.
ID obviously accepts evolution.
So the elephant in the room is basically one type of animal, turning into a completely different type of animal. That is a belief, as you so rightly admitted.

Until the ID model replaces the current model it can not be taught in schools indicating it's lack of establishment and indeed validity.
Nevertheless you may hold ID as your view.

How kind of you!

The difficulty for ID is in the detail, perhaps in providing an explanation of how all species appeared more or less at once.

Same for darwinism.

I expect you believe, given your point about the apparent finding of soft tissue that the world is much younger than science provides in its time scale for the Earth.

I'm not like you, in the sense that I can choose what to believe.
But I do believe that soft tissue has been found.
And I know it is a problem for darwinists.
But creating problems for darwinists is not a new thing.

Once religions could make unsupported claims but in the age of science the necessity to back up claims is now with us.

Who's us?
You're right though. Darwinism does rule supreme, in this topsy turvy world.

 

[Jan Ardena]

I find it fascinating a theist could reject an eternal universe yet accept the unsupported proposition that an entity could exist that is eternal.

You're looking at it all wrong Alex.
God is eternal from our perspective.
But God cannot be God, by definition, if He is not affected by time.
Does that make sense to you?

 

[Jan Ardena]

The hints through out the Bible that the Earth is flat I suppose is just a mere triffle to be overlooked and happily ignored by theists...well some of them.

The shape of the earth is of no real interest to me.
I do believe it is a globe though.
Why is it of interest to you?

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

What religion is he talking about?

He excluded Islam I recall.

Apologetics never want to admit the atrocities committed in the name of God.

Never say never but it certainly seems they just do not seem to ever mention any negative aspect of religion.
They live in a make believe world, believe in a make believe future and believe in ...why go on I will keep it short.

Alex

 

[Jan Ardena]

Well, the fact that one can actually look up "religious wars" speaks volumes in and of itself. I tried to google scientific wars and came up with this:

Lol!!!

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Nevertheless it is polite to respond to a question, in a discussion.

Absolutely and maybe I should have pointed that out to you, when in the past it was you who failed to address my questions.

Tell you what I will do...ask me any question that you need answered and I promise I will give you the best answer I am able to give.

But never mind.

No no no...I can see you are somewhat upset so please ask away, if there is anything you do not know or understand, that you feel I should be able to help you with, and I will give you as honest an answer as I am able to give.

I asked if thought wars were due to religion.

Yes you did.

I gave you a reasonable reply which you seem to have overlooked or not understood.
Please re read my reply and if you have any further questions please ask away. I am happy to help with any information that is not at hand for you.

You seem to think that ancients were ignorant,

Not entirely. I limit my call upon ignorant ancients to those who drank too much wine and eat magic mushrooms and thought their imaginings were real.
It would be inappropriate to consider the Sumerians ignorant given our model for civilization is a near copy of theirs..and just think where did Abraham come from.

didn’t know where the sun went at night.

I don't know where I picked it up actually..maybe when reading how they once worshipped the Sun and then went about presenting human demi gods whose father was the Sun and all the various works outlining the multiple human god cults based upon astrology.

You believe what some scientists tell you.
Therefore you don’t know that it is a fact.
Okay.

Not entirely, as I have said many times, I do not like Alan Guths theory of inflation but I do think he has provided a reasonable possibility, very well thought out and supported by a paper that so far has not been rejected.
Why would one feel uneasy taking a scientist at his word so to speak in an area that is his speciality..you see papers come from scientists who are expert in their field or rather understand and have done their research in that field.

I find them reliable unlike the guy with his collar on backwards in the video as clearly he has not been entirely honest in his casual and biased presentation.

Why are you so concerned about me accepting a fact presented by a scientist when you are most casual about accepting passages in scriptures where in most cases they were written thousands of years ago by authors you do not know or record their qualifications to make their various unsupported claims.

You are the pot calling the kettle shiney.

Most saddening is that you do not even understand why you have a problem assessing the reliability and credibility of your ancient authors and text.

The OT is somewhat credible because it was written by a people recording their understanding of history yet the NT is a Roman invention that took one of many cults and used it to maintain their power having their human God set out behaviour that would suit Roman occupation.

Read about it and don't complain I have a funny view until you have gone over the facts that are as easy to find for you as they are for me.

ID is kicking darwinism ass right now.

Sure it is.

Jan you can not expect to say stuff like that and not have folk call you either a liar or a fool...or both and more.

But you have said it and it is you that will have to wear it...All I can do is plead with Paddo not to crush you under your own wardrobe...but I fear I will be powerless as you are bleeding badly now and he is a very efficient shark. Wow is you.
Why did you stick your head in the lions mouth?...answer..to get to the other side..instant death..other side..get it?

I'm not a scientist.

Thank goodness for that.

ID obviously accepts evolution.

Funny I thought it was it's it's opponent.
Are you sure because the facts seem to suggest that you are very wrong.

So the elephant in the room is basically one type of animal, turning into a completely different type of animal. That is a belief, as you so rightly admitted.

I think you missed my point, well either unintentional or not you do not get any prize for being tricky because of your sloppy execution.

Maybe you missed my emphasis upon the importance of fossil records that clearly show the changes that you find can only be objectionable, those records show your approach to be no more than a unsupported wish that your ancient unknown authors were inspired by God...by the way where is it written that they were inspired by God?

How kind of you!

Well Jan as you know I respect you and I did not want you to think that it was forbidden to hold onto crazy notions...you can have them but perhaps only share them in private lest con men seeking gullible prey hear you and seek to take advantage because they sense they have found their easy mark.

Same for darwinism.

You are correct...scientists go to great effort to get things right.

in the sense that I can choose what to believe.

I would think that is the main thing we have in common Jan....in fact that is what all humans have in common..if that is your claim to being unique I encourage you to try harder as you just identify with the mob.

But I do believe that soft tissue has been found.

Sounds fascinating but as it does not match my preconceived ideas I shall not look it up not shall I look at any link you post setting out detail.
I mean it's ridiculous and does not fit into my concept of reality.

But creating problems for darwinists is not a new thing.

Protests outside schools and court rooms does not count you know. Good speeches from the pulpit are however acceptable but only if they threaten hell as a consequence of not accepting ID.

Who's us?

All humanity. .. indeed the whole universe is now included.

You're looking at it all wrong Alex.

I just knew it would be me who had the problem but I will not abandon reason merely to discuss the supernatural..what is supernatural..what a silly word..I don't like it so it goes in the bin along with atheist and theist. Supernatural..it's one of those words the more you say it the sillier it sounds.

God is eternal from our perspective.

How does he see it?

Does that make sense to you?

Absolutely..you are making stuff up..I get it.

Let me play.

God exists outside reality and is unevidenced except by the creation you claim he is responsible for, we can not know his plans but know exactly what he regards as a sin and although there is no hell that is where he will send sinners...have you ever thought we may actually going to a big fire..maybe Gods barbeque...JC called us lambs..I find that most concerning...and he invited us for a nibble...I can see it now...my turn...the flesh is weak err tender that is...

I think you better apply your reading between the lines skill and tell us what pops out after careful inspection.

And God certainly in times past like the smell of the burning meat..Gods an Aussie I just know it.

The shape of the earth is of no real interest

I only mention it from a historical interest view point as clearly the perception was a flat Earth and if you believed such working out where the Sun went at night would have been a very difficult question in that context.
I find it interesting any material that gives insite into what our ancestors thought about and the Bible is a great place to get an idea..Proverbs for example is overlooked by everyone..have you read that book? Well when you see their "rules" it is very telling on who these people were.

I do believe it is a globe though.

Why do you believe it is a globe?.

How do you prove such a thing?

I hope you are not just taking the word of those fancy book learning science folk.

Read your good book and the truth shall be laid before you like the vast plains of...just think wide expance of land...with four corners and the heavens pulled over it like a tent...and don't forget it does not move...
Do go-ahead prove the Earth is a big ball not fully pumped up.

Why is it of interest to you?

Seriously...I read the Bible to get an understanding of how our/my ancestors viewed the world and sort to explain things around them. References to a flat Earth interests me as it reveals something about their understanding of astronomy at the time.
There is a reference in the NT to stars falling upon the ground which clearly indicates they thought of them as small and not too distant.

The Bible contains much valuable insite to our ancestors you should read all of it some time.


Alex

 

[paddoboy]

You cannot back up your accusation, because it is false.

That may mean something if I was the only person claiming it...but I'm not, am I? And being a lazy bastard I'm just not prepeared to go find extracts proving what others have also accused you of.
But wait a minute!!
You're in luck, just following you say....

The idea of the infinite, can be used to describe God.

Is that another example of your own defining? Or something your Overlords have directed you to say?
The fact is the definition of infinite is "an abstract quantity, without any limit. [WIKI]
So yes, my accusation is even more certain.

The shape of the earth is of no real interest to me.
I do believe it is a globe though.
Why is it of interest to you?

Ít's of no interest to you because once again it shows the bible in its true light....you know, a obscure book, by obscure men, written in an obscure age, full of errors, nonsense, myth.
Oh, and the Earth is actually an oblate spheroid.