It is a lack of, or a disbelief in God.
You yourself ran into a trap.
It is what it is.
If you want to maintain that is not the case, you are free to do so. But you cannot debunk anything I said, in any objective capacity.
Absolutely Nothing: Atheists on What They Know About What They Pretend to Discuss
- Thread starter Tiassa
- Start date
- Status
You yourself ran into a trap.
It is what it is.
If you want to maintain that is not the case, you are free to do so. But you cannot debunk anything I said, in any objective capacity.
Like I said, discussion with you is difficult, if not impossible, when you chose ignorance over expert opinion and education.
If you decide to act more sensibly and stop playing the fool, sure.
No! Atheism is simply an acceptance that we have no evidence for any supernatural being, or anything supernatural to be more precise, as well of course as the so called paranormal.
The only trap I ran into is engaging your nonsensical unscientific claims.
It isn't an implication that any deity exists. That is just one notable example of how you see the need to redefine a word.
This isn't about you *shock, horror* nor is it about me. Science maintains that Darwinism and the theory of evolution is fact, and it also determins that the supernatural and paranormal are unscientific concepts without evidence.
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
And there we have it Ladies and Gentlemen...remain ignorant, dumb, gullible, and forever deny the finality of death, and instead pretend a forever in heaven or in the case of evil Atheists, hell
The irony is that there is a greater probability of aliens landing on the lawn at the white house than any god notion becoming reality.
Just think about it, via Drakes equation we could at least speculate upon the number of aliens out there and even assign a probability to the landing on the white house lawn and although that probability would be very very very small it at least will be miles ahead of JC returning.
Jan needs attention and I suspect in the real world does not get the attention his ego demands and so he comes here and makes a fool of himself so as to receive some form of attention. I get it but his behaviour leaves him with no respect, which does not matter as with attention his ego has what it needs so it's all good. I get that.
Billvon dealt rather well explaining the evolution that saw the arrival of the whale covering the matter very professionally and Jan rudely just ignores the material and goes on with his attention grasping routine.
But although explanation is lost, (rather rejected because he really must get it), on Jan the wonderful spin off is passers by maybe learn more about science and how some theists go about dragging their faith out so it can only attract ridicule.
I am happy to play in the game because sadly, and it is sad when you think it thru, have nothing to do but help him play the fool and assist him to satisfy his unsatisfiable desire for attention, ...I do however feel it is very wrong for him to represent his side so badly..
But no doubt he is an asset of the site.
Alex
Perhaps this site, anywhere else he would have been banned long ago.
Don’t worry about it Paddo.
Keep safe.
No worries at all Jan. I just prefer science and the scientific methodology over other hypotheticals or myths.
I also [through the Mrs and her church] have plenty of church going, christian friends. They tolerate my position, I tolerate theirs...The Mrs even brings them around once a month for choir practise, and when they finish Ijoin in and have a bowl or two or three or more, of kava with them.....the conflict here occurs when claims from creationists come up against the logic and sensibility of science and its methodology.
I do within reason.But life goes on.... I need to now do some shopping and one never knows about being hit by a bus!!
Sorry to disappoint you, but he didn’t.
What material did I ignore?
If you asked me to show evidence of God, and I quoted the bible constantly. Would yhat be acceptable in a discussion?
Just linking sites where darwinism is automatically assumed, is not material that can be called evidence.
My question is “what is it that makes you personally believe it to be a scientific fact”?
Nobody can answer that. Because there isn’t any way one can.
I don’t have a desire for attention. I just enjoy discussions. But obviously you guys don’t.
You are emotionally invested in this philosophy. It is little wonder why folk refer to darwinism as a religion, or a philosophy.
You can’t take any criticism of it. That’s okay as a philosophy, but it does nothing to show that it is a science fact.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
jan doesn't realize how fortunate he is that the scientists here are even giving him "time of day". He has absolutely no standing to argue science with religious argument.
Religion is not a scientific discipline. Religion is more like Finance, a profitable bottom line.....
Religion is not a scientific discipline. Religion is more like Finance, a profitable bottom line.....
The bible is not a scientific text, built on observational and experimental data as scientific texts are..it is an obscure text, written by obscure men, in an obscure age.
You have been given answers to that Jan...valid answers.
Telling lies makes little baby jesus cry.
It is you emotionally and possibly financially invested in your myth...You chose to discuss it on a science forum, but refuse all critique and scientific reasoning and facts. Note Jan, it is a fact. Micro/macro evolution occurs, you have been shown that. It just doesn't fit your agenda.
And science takes plenty of criticism...it changes all the time...SR/GR/the BB/Darwinism/theory of evolution, are being put to the test every day, as we speak. The ones I just mentioned though, stand the test of time....some possible minor modifications and/or additions, but they remain as so. Others do change and are scrapped. That's the beauty of the discipline of science.
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
And you should be.
All of it.
Why would I ask for something you clearly dont have?
You would have to read it first.
That would turn on the subject of the discussion.
Give me a mailing address and I will send you a box of bones for you to chew over.
I dont think about it that way but I have confidence in the theory as it is the best explanation humans have to explain the diversity of species as they relate to the fosil record etc etc etc. And as there is no other theory on the table it provides the best explanation and underpins our understanding of biology.
I just did, in fact everyone has given you answers which you reject for no other reason than they exposure ID as a myth and not science.
You can ask the question over and over but the more attempts that are made by members to help you the more it will become apparent to you that your creationists notions do not match the theory or the vast array of evidence in support and remember on your side there is no evidence of one damn thing and so perhaps before you attempt to pull down evolution you may be better served getting your house in order.
First you need to provide evidence of creation and I suggest that you are unable to do that...Further realise science makes no claim as to how life started because it does not know yet on your side your make unsupported c,aims founded in myth and not supported by evidence.
Battery going flat I may add more later
Alex
We were discussing evolution, which you deny. (You call it "Darwinism.") The topics listed are the sciences that demonstrate that a dog-like creature evolved into a whale. If you accept them, then you have to accept what they demonstrate. If you deny them, then list which ones you deny and we can talk about that.
So can you answer the question? I am guessing you cannot, because to do so would conflict with your political agenda.
I have given you the list of intermediate forms of those animals, and what scientific fields prove that they are valid - several times now.
I am wide awake. You are still under the sway of a religious ideology that requires you to deny science, and/or try to redefine it to avoid the issue entirely.
Correct. So when it comes to (for example) comparing morphological changes in fossils, they are VERY good at determining how fossils change with time, and what precedes what. You are not. You can disagree with them, of course - but to do so with any credibility you have to have a level of expertise similar to theirs. Saying "it was a GOD-ZAP and I am not listening to anything else lalalala!" leaves you with zero credibility.
Sounds like you feel like learning ANYTHING is "forced indoctrination." Which would explain your remarkable ignorance of several fields of science.
Do you feel that learning to speak, read and write in a language is forced indoctrination of children? After all, why aren't they allowed to question what words mean?
Do you feel that learning basic math is forced indoctrination of children? After all, why aren't they allowed to decide that 2+2=5? Why the forced indoctrination that it equals 4?
Do you feel that learning about gravity is forced indoctrination of children? After all, why aren't they allowed to question whether gravity exists? Why isn't their uninformed opinion just as valid as that of a scientist?
Correct. Hippos did not turn into whales. However, they absolutely do share a common ancestor, as we have demonstrated.
This is sign #4 that you are losing the argument badly - you are trying to change the subject away from the one that you've failed at.
I take it you didn't even bother to read the link. Are you that determined to remain ignorant and brainwashed?
You guys are the ones talking about religion.
I’m simply asking a question, which hasn’t been answered.
Bringing God and religion into this discussion is a diversion. The topic is darwinism, not religion, not God.
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
Running with solar has its moments particularly in overcast weather...
To continue..
That statement is not consistent with showing your posts here to your mates a behaviour you have yet to explain.
That's nice.
I think all here enjoy a sensible discussion when one if ever comes along in the religious forums.
Science is not philosophy and you can't change that by trying to define it to suit yourself...and further the wonderful thing about science is that it requires no investment of emotion ... it puts forward well supported models that simply offer the best analysis of the available data.
I am confident that to call something a religion you require the inclusion of a mythical god and as there is no God in the theory your assertion is clearly incorrect...the only philosophy that could be said to be involved is Carl Poppers outline on the necessary rigor of the scientific method which certainly is referred to as the philosophy of science but there is no philosophy behind evolution as it merely explains the observations..hardly philosophy no matter how long you wish to draw the bow.
There is no reasonable critism is the key point. You behaviour has you merely expressing your unsupported views which is not critism and until you present support for your claims will never rank as critism.
Unfortunately your statement makes no sense at all. The Theory exists as does the evidence in support and it won't go away just because it exposures the fairey tales surrounding ID and creationism.
I respect your right to believe whatever you wish but if you wish to present claims that essentially set out your beliefs, be it god, creationism or ID you will unfortunately for you be denied an audience with reasonable folk if you are unable to support any aspect of your claims.
You have yet to establish creation given that our best model can not do so, without establishing creation you can only fail to establish a creator and as far as ID goes I don't think it can be dealt with until you have satisfactorily addressed creation.
As I said ....believe what you wish but realise to promote your beliefs in an honest manner you must follow the path I laid out any ...claim must have evidence in support..Jan it is that simple.
Alex
To continue..
That statement is not consistent with showing your posts here to your mates a behaviour you have yet to explain.
That's nice.
I think all here enjoy a sensible discussion when one if ever comes along in the religious forums.
Science is not philosophy and you can't change that by trying to define it to suit yourself...and further the wonderful thing about science is that it requires no investment of emotion ... it puts forward well supported models that simply offer the best analysis of the available data.
I am confident that to call something a religion you require the inclusion of a mythical god and as there is no God in the theory your assertion is clearly incorrect...the only philosophy that could be said to be involved is Carl Poppers outline on the necessary rigor of the scientific method which certainly is referred to as the philosophy of science but there is no philosophy behind evolution as it merely explains the observations..hardly philosophy no matter how long you wish to draw the bow.
There is no reasonable critism is the key point. You behaviour has you merely expressing your unsupported views which is not critism and until you present support for your claims will never rank as critism.
Unfortunately your statement makes no sense at all. The Theory exists as does the evidence in support and it won't go away just because it exposures the fairey tales surrounding ID and creationism.
I respect your right to believe whatever you wish but if you wish to present claims that essentially set out your beliefs, be it god, creationism or ID you will unfortunately for you be denied an audience with reasonable folk if you are unable to support any aspect of your claims.
You have yet to establish creation given that our best model can not do so, without establishing creation you can only fail to establish a creator and as far as ID goes I don't think it can be dealt with until you have satisfactorily addressed creation.
As I said ....believe what you wish but realise to promote your beliefs in an honest manner you must follow the path I laid out any ...claim must have evidence in support..Jan it is that simple.
Alex
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
And hence the refusal to turn away paying customers at the door of unfortunately many churches...coupled with the realisation of the "controllers" that one needs to keep a tight rein on these customers else they go to another supplier or worst still stop buying the product full stop.
Alex
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
And no doubt here if he was not indeed an asset...think of the meaning of the word and the necessity of ownership.
Alex
Stop being so dishonestly obtuse.
Obviously Darwinism and the theory of evolution are fact, and in disputing that fact, you are essentially substituting some form of ID.
The same goes for Abiogenesis, which while James said was still hypothetical to an extent, actually meant [I think] the exact methodology of Abiogenesis is unknown. The science of Abiogenesis, life from non life, is though fact.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
While the details of this process are still unknown, the prevailing scientific hypothesis is that the transition from non-living to living entities was not a single event, but an evolutionary process of increasing complexity that involved molecular self-replication, self-assembly, autocatalysis, and the emergence of cell membranes.[9][10][11] Although the occurrence of abiogenesis is uncontroversial among scientists, its possible mechanisms are poorly understood. There are several principles and hypotheses for how abiogenesis could have occurred
Try and be serious.
You sent me material, I didn’t ignore that.
I’ve looked at loads of material that has been sent, and none of them answer the question.
You are the one one who is ignoring. Just look at your responses. You haven’t answered most of the questions or points that I have raised.
At least try and have some kind of dialogue.
Why do you think I haven’t read the bible, or the Quran, or the entire vedas, and Puranas?
It’s not a difficult thing to do.
That’s fine. But my question relates to why do you think that?
I would also like to know what why you have a problem with ID. A more serious approach please, if possible.
So it basically boils down to belief, not evidence. Whale evolution can only be accepted on faith, because I’m pretty sure none of you guys have seen any evidence. But you accept what you are told from Gingrich and other scientists. Is that a fair statement? If not can you explain how you come to accept it as a science fact?
Firstly, there is no side. You don’t need to be a theist to understand that technically, there is no real way to verify something like whale evolution. And folk here certainly is not in a position to verify it. It has to be taken in faith.
We’re not even talking about full fossils here. We’re talking about fragments, which have to undergo serious reconstruction. Then on top of that you have to use your imagination to build a story. It’s not as simple as bilvon would have us believe.
Secondly, there’s no need to bring up creation, or creationist. We can talk about that separately. At the moment it just seems like you’re using it to avoid answering questions put to you. If you do not want me to ask the questions, just say so, and I will stop. No need to evade.
Thirdly, it seems like you’re the ones who need help. Otherwise you wouldn’t need to just post sites, unnecessarily accuse me of stuff. I don’t mind the disrespect toward God or religion, or my belief, because you could see my points as disrespectful to your beliefs.
Well we can discuss creation. I don’t mind.
But right now we’re discussing darwinism. Is it fair to say that?
Last edited:
“Behaviour” only applies to how I act on here.
What any of us do in our everyday life is our own business. Apart from that, I cut an pasted the dialogues alone, onto my iPhone note pad.
So they didn’t see names like jan Ardena, Alex etc... I was interested in the denial, not the people. That’s what was phenomenon.
I’ll bear that in mind when and if I decide to promote my belief.
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
You are the only one that has the problem it seems.
Why? You have demonstrated you don't want dialogue.
I don't think you have as you seem oblivious to the errors etc that would cause you to become an atheist.
I thought I was rather clear.
The scientific method is rigorous such that it is reliable.
The method greatly reduces opportunity to get it wrong.
And in general everything around you is there because of science, the plastic cup, the porcelain cup, the computer, the phone, the fridge, the paint on the walls, the carpet, your clothes your food any thing you see is the result of science even Rays banana.
It masquerades as science when it is no where close to science.
It's proponents are dishonest in saying they can't suggest a designer when clearly their hidden agenda is not hidden at all.
Proponents propose it is taught in school as an alternate science which shows how ignorant of scientific method they actually are.
ID has absolutely nothing to make it a valid hypothesis let alone a scientific theory.
You may not realise it But that is at best wrong at worst a big lie.
One has confidence as opposed to belief. Belief is associated with religion.
The evidence is available and you rejecting it or ignoring it does not make it go away.
No your are wrong.
Faith is best left to appologise for an unsupported religious belief.
Whale evolution has been explained to you.... you simply are unable to accept it as your house of cards will tumble down...however accept it or not the evidence is available for analysis and the analysis is totally compelling.
How could you know that?
Have you heard of museums, and no doubt there would be folk here who have handled fossils that tell a part of the story.
I have..in Sydney at the museum they have a section where you can open the draws read the notes and examine the fossils.
In your context definitely not.
You are now trolling.
Is your idea of dialogue to keep on sifting thru ashes?
But there is..the side of reason and scientific method and your side which is not only devoid of those ingredients but of honesty it seems.
But there is and it has been done ...the only problem is your inability to properly review the science.
That is not the problem of science but yours alone.
Stop trolling or I will report you...not that you will be banned
I am all ears rather eyes..go ahead state your case, step by step. I think it's as simple as your cartoon in a funny way...but go ahead rather than just rant have a go mate,,,what have you got?
Of course there is ..stop being dishonest..the railing you display is motivated by your creationist world view..how is it not relevant?
We can not. If you were not committed to creationism there would be no problem.
Trolling...with a creationist agenda. I don't mind you being a sneaky bastard but but being a repetitious fool is just too much to bear..Stop it.
Trolling yet again.
Now you are being tiresome. You have no points is the entire point here..you have not made a case. Nothing just bluster ...so much for dialogue.
I am sure you would not mind so please go ahead..First establish there was a point of creation...something science has been unable to do.
Well no actually, we could but you refuse and merely troll.
I Repeat you are doing nothing more than trolling.
It's up to 37 c in the van now so I may go and dangle my feet in the dam...
Alex
- Status