God can't be denied

[KennyJC]

Am I the only one that that finds these line-by-line replies a stilted read?

You will have to get used to it. When debating with theists (people like Jan in particular), you must be short and precise to all the points you want to address, because if you ramble on, they will conveniently leave out the points you want them to address.

On a line per line basis, they have no choice but to take on your main points (if they choose to reply at all).

 

[swivel]

You will have to get used to it. When debating with theists (people like Jan in particular), you must be short and precise to all the points you want to address, because if you ramble on, they will conveniently leave out the points you want them to address.

On a line per line basis, they have no choice but to take on your main points (if they choose to reply at all).

Thanks for the answer. I know what you mean. In another thread, my points on dark matter and string theory were ignored, while an example using Einstein's name took the next poster off on this amazing tangent.

Oh, and thanks a ton for bumping my disproof of a god off of the current page.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=57134

 

[Cris]

Usp8riot,

Cris, to me, belief in God is not really necessary but you realize that we are all part of something great, we are the universe,

We are all part of the universe, yes. I’m not sure that more need be said, apart from it is good to be alive since the alternative is not so attractive.

all working in unison

But that clearly isn’t true. Stars and galaxies collide, people fight wars, big fish eat little fish, etc. While there are a great many dependencies, from the perspective of a little fish I’m not sure that being eaten could be classed as “working in unison”.

and that there is no waste,

The garbage collection services around the world would probably disagree with you.

no human without purpose,

Unless of course some people make no effort to establish a purpose for themselves and live and die with no apparent result.

we should take care of the earth and each other to be healthy as we are all one unified complex machine.

Not really. We should do these things to survive, whether we are part of a whole or a group of individuals, is irrelevant

You realize the importance of the smallest creatures/things and the largest.

Everything can be appreciated in some way, but many things are more important than others, but then everything is relative.

The universe is indifferent to whether we exist or not, it has no capacity to care. If our planet was to explode tomorrow and everyone was vaporized, no achievement by any human would have any effect on the universe. In this sense humans serve no purpose for the universe as a whole. Purpose can only be assigned by us for the benefit of us and for our appreciation. And similarly humanity as a whole cares little for the purpose set by an individual. Only the purpose you set for yourself has any value. And if some people set no purpose for themselves then they are essentially valueless.

 

[Jan Ardena]

KennyJC,

The only 'evidence' is entirely self-generated via the imagination...

2 questions;
how do you know?
and what length have you taken to come to this conclusion?

However it is so easy for you to say it's from 'the holy spirit' or some other trite response which is all theists have to fall back on.

Please stick to what I said. We'll have non of that "embellishing" molarcky here thank you.

God effects all of us.

affects?
Well done. That is the most sensible thing you have said.

This is manifested through the damaging behavior of the theists of the world. Therefor it obviously concerns atheists.

An atheist denies Gods authority, therefore the actions are automatically contrary to God-consciousness. It does not matter what a person describes themselves as, what matters is their actions. A person can be a theist today and an atheist tomorrow without even realising it, which is why, in reality, it doesn't matter what you call yourself.

I am the king of Spain, do you believe me, or do you require further proof?

Anybody can write scripture,

If anybody could, anybody would, because judging the success of BONA-FIDE scriptures, it would be a sure-fire winner to create ultimate power.

As are suicide cults practically the same also.

Can you point me to suicide cults in any scripture?

Intriguing, huh? Copycat behavior is prevalent in all manner of human activities - religion is no different.

In light of my statement, I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean here, please elaborate.

Literally, it is simply fiction.

And Einstein is a complete atheist.
Saddam Hussein did have wmd's.
And Iraq is now a better place.

Jan.

 

[KennyJC]

KennyJC,
2 questions;
how do you know?
and what length have you taken to come to this conclusion?

People believe through 'faith', not by something that can be shown. Theists tend to say that it is something that is 'experienced'. The word experience is deliberately used so that it doesn't sound like it is from their imagination. But if it doesn't come from the imagination, then I beg the question, where does it come from? All superstitions come from the imagination, however once you show evidence for your far-fetched claims, then religion/sky fairies will no longer be superstition.

Well done. That is the most sensible thing you have said.

You know fine well I meant God's followers are the one that affects us. God himself doesn't affect me any more than the invisible pink unicorn does.

An atheist denies Gods authority, therefore the actions are automatically contrary to God-consciousness.

Gods authority? That is like saying because I don't believe in the invisible pink unicorn I am rejecting it's 'authority' also. How can you reject the authority of something that effectively doesn't exist?

It does not matter what a person describes themselves as, what matters is their actions. A person can be a theist today and an atheist tomorrow without even realising it, which is why, in reality, it doesn't matter what you call yourself.

It does matter. George Bush is a republican and people who believe in God are theists. Simple really.

If anybody could, anybody would, because judging the success of BONA-FIDE scriptures, it would be a sure-fire winner to create ultimate power.

I said anybody could create a religion and write a scripture and perpetuate myth, I didn't say it was easy to gain millions of followers - not in this day and age. Although Scientology is doing pretty well and it has scripture.

http://www.scripturalscientology.org/

Although I have a feeling your idea of scripture is very selective, so you will need to define "bona-fide scripture" for me.

But the argument is irrelevant to me. Popularity of religion does not equate itself with chances of being the right one.

Can you point me to suicide cults in any scripture?

They generate their own scriptures, just like any cult does. May I remind you that Christianity was once just a cult with no scripture? What do you think was going on in the decades between the death of 'Jesus' and the first scriptures? The myth machine was spreading like a virus, eating all the other up and coming sects.

In light of my statement, I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean here, please elaborate.

Are you trying to tell me that those religions were not at all influenced by religions gone before - now forgotten? That is the nature of the religious sect. Religion was (and is) so prevailent that copycat behavior is only expected. Copycatting is a fundamental part of human civilisation.

And Einstein is a complete atheist.
Saddam Hussein did have wmd's.
And Iraq is now a better place.

Jan.

I don't see how this is a reply to my calling religious claims fiction.

 

[(Q)]

And Einstein is a complete atheist.

Jan.

And that is the only sensible thing you've ever said.

 

[Jan Ardena]

KennyJC,

People believe through 'faith', not by something that can be shown.

You are basing your conclusions of 'hearsay'.
Having dialogued with you a few times, it is hardly surprising.

Theists tend to say that it is something that is 'experienced'.

But what do you say?
Please answer the questions directly.

But if it doesn't come from the imagination, then I beg the question, where does it come from?

You're the who claims to know why me or anybody else believes in God. I am only interested in how you come to your conclusion, and what lengths you have gone to to come to the point of 'knowning'.

All superstitions come from the imagination, however once you show evidence for your far-fetched claims, then religion/sky fairies will no longer be superstition.

Is this your analasys?

You know fine well I meant God's followers are the one that affects us. God himself doesn't affect me any more than the invisible pink unicorn does.

So you do believe Gods existence, you just don't believe (wish/hope) that He has any effect on anything. I'm begining to understand that this is the case for all (modern) atheists who surf these types of websites. They get a kick out of thinking they are sticking the boot into, or getting one over on, their supreme master, Almighty God.

Gods authority?

You know, the part of God you intensly dislike.

That is like saying because I don't believe in the invisible pink unicorn I am rejecting it's 'authority' also.

I'm not familiar with the religion of the IPU, are there any related, revealed scriptures?

How can you reject the authority of something that effectively doesn't exist?

But, to you, God does exist, you express His existence everytime you reject, deny, or name-call Him. Your relentless insistence here, is a belief of/in His existence.

It does matter. George Bush is a republican and people who believe in God are theists. Simple really.

I am a king of spain, do you believe me, or do you require more evidence?

I said anybody could create a religion and write a scripture and perpetuate myth, I didn't say it was easy to gain millions of followers - not in this day and age.

Name one scripture that hasn't commanded millions of followers, past or present?

Although I have a feeling your idea of scripture is very selective, so you will need to define "bona-fide scripture" for me.

I doubt my description would make any difference as you are only going to knock it regardless of whether you think it is valid or not.

But the argument is irrelevant to me. Popularity of religion does not equate itself with chances of being the right one.

There is only one religion, service to 'God'.

They generate their own scriptures, just like any cult does. May I remind you that Christianity was once just a cult with no scripture?

You are correct, up to the point where Jesus inspired his diciples to write the details of their relationship with him, from their own perspective, at which point it becomes bona-fide.

Are you trying to tell me that those religions were not at all influenced by religions gone before - now forgotten?

There is one religion...service to 'God'. It has remained the same from time imemorial, right up until this very moment, and it will always remain so, despite any effort to quash it.

Copycatting is a fundamental part of human civilisation.

Explain please.


Jan.

 

[KennyJC]

KennyJC,
You are basing your conclusions of 'hearsay'.
Having dialogued with you a few times, it is hardly surprising.

Hardly hearsay. I once believed in God as it was something that was taught to me by my teachers and not discouraged by my parents. Religion, although not playing a big part in my community the same way it does in places like the Middle East and the United States, was indoctrinated without much choice, and I know all too well what it is like to believe what you read in the Bible and that there is an invisible sky who wubs woo.

But what do you say?
Please answer the questions directly.

I think you know my stance on this. Religious faith is subjective, delusional, lazy, superstitious and not supported by any evidence (otherwise it wouldn't be called faith).

You're the who claims to know why me or anybody else believes in God. I am only interested in how you come to your conclusion, and what lengths you have gone to to come to the point of 'knowning'.

First and foremost I am a human being - I understand superstitions and wishful thinking and irrational thinking. However despite this, people will have absolute belief due to emotional bribes and fear mongering. But that doesn't really tell the whole story. Even in 'secular' Britain, when I first recall saying that I didn't think God existed to someone (around 12 years of age), they looked at me in disbelief at this outrageous outburst of blasphemy. And therein lies the success of religion; with such mass indoctrination, it is in fact the non-believers that are thought of as the irrational ones. If not in their homes, then in schools they are taught this or that religion for years as fact and are not allowed to question it. Despite all those years of going to church and being read the Bible, and forced to sing hymns praising Jay-a-sus the Lawd, I have not taken anything from it that shows religion or belief in Gods is at all rational or that there is any proof to it. Which is why it all comes down to baseless belief.

Is this your analasys?

Yes.

So you do believe Gods existence, you just don't believe (wish/hope) that He has any effect on anything. I'm begining to understand that this is the case for all (modern) atheists who surf these types of websites. They get a kick out of thinking they are sticking the boot into, or getting one over on, their supreme master, Almighty God.

This is complete irrelevance. Since God effectively doesn't exist, there is nothing to stick the boot into. Of course, if there was evidence of intelligent creation, I would hold it as at least a promising theory which should be included in science. Although, if such a day were to come, I would not be jumping into any religion or pretending to know the motives of such an intelligence. I would only learn on the basis of evidence uncovered by scientific enquiry.

You know, the part of God you intensly dislike.

Irrelevant again... How can you dislike something that effectively doesn't exist?

I'm not familiar with the religion of the IPU, are there any related, revealed scriptures?

By revealed scriptures you mean scriptures that God himself has endorsed?

I don't know if the FSM scripture is a 'revealed' scripture... I should buy it and find out and I'll get back to you.

But, to you, God does exist, you express His existence everytime you reject, deny, or name-call Him. Your relentless insistence here, is a belief of/in His existence.

That is a silly point that makes no sense. If I deny the existence of Santa, that means he exists?

Name one scripture that hasn't commanded millions of followers, past or present?

All but a small amount of course.

I doubt my description would make any difference as you are only going to knock it regardless of whether you think it is valid or not.

Of course I will knock it. Especially since your answer would only reveal that you follow scripture for the most baseless of reasons. There are no valid religious scriptures (Besides the FSM Gospel's of course).

There is only one religion, service to 'God'.

At last! Recognition for the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

You are correct, up to the point where Jesus inspired his diciples to write the details of their relationship with him, from their own perspective, at which point it becomes bona-fide.

So all that is required to make a scripture 'bona-fide' is to be inspired by someone/something? That is vague to the point that any scipture can be bona-fide.

Explain please.

Ever heard of memes ?

 

[Jan Ardena]

KennyJC,

I once believed in God as it was something that was taught to me by my teachers and not discouraged by my parents.......

.......and I know all too well what it is like to believe what you read in the Bible and that there is an invisible sky who wubs woo.

Can you explain what exactly made you believe in God?

I think you know my stance on this. Religious faith is subjective, delusional, lazy, superstitious and not supported by any evidence (otherwise it wouldn't be called faith).

This opinion has nothing to do with my questions;

The only 'evidence' is entirely self-generated via the imagination...

how do you know?
and what length have you taken to come to this conclusion?

First and foremost I am a human being - I understand superstitions and wishful thinking and irrational thinking.

Are you suggesting that I am not, and I do not?

However despite this, people will have absolute belief due to emotional bribes and fear mongering.

mkay...

But that doesn't really tell the whole story.

You can say that again.

Even in 'secular' Britain, when I first recall saying that I didn't think God existed to someone (around 12 years of age), they looked at me in disbelief at this outrageous outburst of blasphemy. And therein lies the success of religion;

Are you serious man?
How old are you now 12 and a half?

...with such mass indoctrination, it is in fact the non-believers that are thought of as the irrational ones.

*yawn*

When are you going to get the part when you tell me how you know;
"The only 'evidence' is entirely self-generated via the imagination... "

If not in their homes, then in schools they are taught this or that religion for years as fact and are not allowed to question it.

Sounds to me like you're a conspiracy theorist.

Despite all those years of going to church and being read the Bible, and forced to sing hymns praising Jay-a-sus the Lawd, I have not taken anything from it that shows religion or belief in Gods is at all rational or that there is any proof to it. Which is why it all comes down to baseless belief.

What made you believe in God?
I mean, what convinced you?

All superstitions come from the imagination, however once you show evidence for your far-fetched claims, then religion/sky fairies will no longer be superstition. ”

Is this your analasys?

Yes.

Your method of analasys is as irrational and baseless as you purport religion to be, it's not even reasonable, nor recognisable. Is this what they teach in schools?

This is complete irrelevance. Since God effectively doesn't exist, there is nothing to stick the boot into.

If this is so, why spend so much of your life thinking about Him?

Of course, if there was evidence of intelligent creation, I would hold it as at least a promising theory which should be included in science.

What would suffice as credible scientific evidence for the existence of the almighty God?
Apart from everything

Irrelevant again... How can you dislike something that effectively doesn't exist?

Maybe you should talk to a psycologist to uncover this puzzle.

I don't know if the FSM scripture is a 'revealed' scripture... I should buy it and find out and I'll get back to you.

If it makes you feel better, but this type of denial, covering up, is not going to make God go away. You should at least try and understand who and what God is, then make a conclusion in knowledge rather than ignorance.

That is a silly point that makes no sense. If I deny the existence of Santa, that means he exists?

Denial and existence are two different things, people always deny things that are real.

Name one scripture that hasn't commanded millions of followers, past or present?

All but a small amount of course.

That makes no sense. Do you think you can answer the question properly?

Of course I will knock it. Especially since your answer would only reveal that you follow scripture for the most baseless of reasons.

Then why bother ask me to define it?

There are no valid religious scriptures (Besides the FSM Gospel's of course).

Of course...the child who hates his daddy because he feels his daddy pays too little attention to him, runs away one day telling everyone he has no daddy, doing everything he knows his daddy would not approve of.....

At last! Recognition for the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Wha..hey!!!

So all that is required to make a scripture 'bona-fide' is to be inspired by someone/something? That is vague to the point that any scipture can be bona-fide.

You conveniently missed the essential character(s), how convenient.

Jan.

P.S. I am a king of spain, do you believe or do you require more evidence?

Please directly answer the question.

Jan.

 

[Gordon]

if the universe has existed forever, randomness is the only process needed, as any and all states must be exausted.

This is not logically correct. Randomness is an explanation for what cannot be predicted because of the high level of complexity involved. Randomness (as we have called it) has no causative effect. It is not a force. If you do not believe this, quote me a unit of randomness force! It cannot do anything. If what we call random effects are at work, the effects must be caused by some combination of real causative forces. There will be rules as to how those forces behave so that all options are not possible, only those allowed for within those rules of behaviour. The reason a coin thrown in the air has a 50 - 50 chance of landing heads or tails is that the physics do not give any chance of the coin landing and staying standing on its edge. Nor of course will it stay in mid air! So despite the 'random' nature of coins landing after being thrown, all states are not possible. Edge landing and mid air suspension will never happen not even in infinite time!

The other point to bear in mind is that whilst purely random selection of a set would in theory go through all combinations in infinite time, there would still be no criterion for distinguishing which was useful and which was not, unless there were some pre-existing rules to indicate this.

An example is the famous 'Dawkins's Monkey Scenario' where they are busily typing away on their typewriters. Given time certainly some short pieces of meaningful English or French or German or whatever could be constructed but someone would have to know the rules and vocabulary of these languages to recognise them as having any more value than the gobbledegook. And of course which was meaningful and which was gobbledegook would change in accordance with which rules (language) you chose. So you could never select the useful from the useless unelss there were pre-existing (logical) criterion for so doing. Such rules of course need to be devised!

So however you look at randomness, it is not the only process needed and in fact randomness is not really even any form of process, but merely a description of multiple processes (behaving in a prescribed manner) going on, the total effect of which we can not measure sufficiently in order to make an accurate prediction of it.

regards,



Gordon.