₦airaland Forum

So eventually we end up with this...

striktlymi: And really, I am curious why u went to so much length, making research about what you don't even believe. The theory of evolution can't explain what happened before then; the big b.ang theory also can't say much about what caused it. So really it seem a complete waste of your time. All you had to do was say "I am an atheist and I reject the belief of gods". I think this would have made much sense.

There are several threads here. I'll just take one for now, the nature of atheism

striktlymi: Are you sure you have made no claims of your own? I thought you were an atheist? I guess I thought wrong. But if you are then you should note that a fundamental belief of atheism is that there is no God. This is a claim that is not backed up by science.

wiegraf: I am an atheist, bordering on being a militant one sef. You seem to be unfamiliar with a few basics. The bold is completely wrong in most contexts, we may get back to that. You don't have a good grasp of what atheism is as well. Think carefully about this statement; it's not that we belief there are no gods, it's that we don't belief there are any gods. We are not asserting anything, you have to prove to us that there is one. Just like you'd expect me to if I told you that santa really exists.

striktlymi: Hi,
I guess you are getting yourself "confused". If Atheism is not the rejection of the belief in God I wonder what is. Note that to reject something implies that the person rejecting has some basis to show that what he or she is rejecting is actually false, if indeed you (let me not say atheist cause I don't think you speak. For all of them) are in search of the truth or if indeed you believe that rejecting the belief in God is true then you would have proofs to show that your rejection is in order.

wiegraf: Lack of belief, non. I've already told you why I don't believe, there's no evidence to support one. You've not provided any other than 'I say so' and maybe first cause. For first cause, like I've already stated, if the big bang did come from something and is not the uncaused caused, then it likely came from some form of basic energy. Assuming something complex and conscious would be violating ockhams razor. Can you think of any way something would acquire complexity out of the blue? With us and haphazard evolution, big bang and star formation and planets etc, it's taken 14 billion years to come up with conscious beings. The pattern from nature is always simple to complex, not the other way round. There aren't even any theories that could dream up something showing
up conscious, except maybe magic.

Now supposing some consciousness set off the big bang, it too most have been formed by some simple form of energy, that would technically be the uncaused cause, or first cause. Any such being will be likely subject to some laws, so the supernatural bit is a stretch as well.

Note how I've defined what atheism entails. Note how I point out that the only piece of evidence you've provided is first cause. Note how I go out of my way to show you why first cause is not a valid reason to assume a concious god, let alone a supernatural god which is what you are pushing, based on the description of god you gave earlier.

And you keep on harping about how science agrees this is evidence of 'god', which you described earlier as supernatural. That is in no way true and you've not provided any evidence for that. I've pointed that out but you've ignored it

So, again...

striktlymi: And really, I am curious why u went to so much length, making research about what you don't even believe. The theory of evolution can't explain what happened before then; the big b.ang theory also can't say much about what caused it. So really it seem a complete waste of your time. All you had to do was say "I am an atheist and I reject the belief of gods". I think this would have made much sense.

Note how I've already told you that is not what atheism entails. I already addressed that but have had to go through a fair bit of nonsense to make you understand the basics... Simple:
we don't know != god.
you are the one making the claim god exists, rather than saying
we don't know = we don't know
You are saying
we don't know = god

It seems you cannot grasp how the burden of proof works, and what atheism is...

Sooooo.... wait, I'm not done yet

I've more or else already addressed everything in this post. But you do not understand basic things, like what atheism is and how burden of proof works. So I now have to explain these to you in what little time I have....

So I address your issues, then you come up with...

striktlymi: Good morning, I trust you slept well. I have tried to respond to your querries and thoughts below. Sorry, I couldn't do that yesterday night cause I slept off.

Since you believe in the scientific method then what inspired your beliefs that there is no God? I know science did not tell you this. The belief of there being no God is mainly inspired by this line of thought: "If I can't see it, feel it or experience it then it does not exist". This has nothing to do with empirical knowledge or using the scientific method. If you believe in the scientific method as I do, then prove empirically that there is no God.

The fact that one is yet to understand something does not prove that it does not exist. You ask for proofs that the supernatural exists? Do you have proofs that it does not exist? It's quite easy to go on the offensive and ask someone to "prove things" but in fact the proof against such things is not in existence. Anyways, there has been cases of things happening which are yet to be explained by science. We have seen people get cured of their ailments after they have been written off by science. I am not talking about some fake miracles people are performing these days. If this is not a pointer to the existence of some higher "force" then I wonder what is.

The existence of a first cause was proved empirically using scientific methods. The fact that we do not know how the first cause came about does not suggest the use of magic. Anyways I pretty much believe that you do not believe there is anything like magic.

I hope you know what it means to "beg the question"? None of my definitions about God has the word "God" as part of the definition. You still seek empirical evidence after the proof of a first cause? Anyways since this logic is weak to you, don't you thnk that not believing something you are yet to prove as none existent is also very weak?

The fact that a majority of scientists choose to believe in something does not in anyway suggest that it is correct. Like I have pointed out, I do believe in the scientific method and that's how I know that your belief that there is no God is not in line with the scientific method. Science does not claim what it has not proven. Your belief that God does not exist is far from being scientific. The belief that there is no God is also your personal conclusion cause this is yet to be proved by science.

The phrase "God did it" ws curled from somewhere. I believe it was used in context but now you prefer to use it in isolation. Anyways, if I choose to believe that God actually did it, I believe that is my choice. You believe God has no hand in it, iff there is a God for you. This line of thought of there being no God is also not scientific.

For abiogenesis the same question would be asked: what happened before the fossils?


Note that scientific theories are hypothesis that have been tested over time and have been found to be true for most cases without knowing if there is anything to the contrary. Scientific theories can be disporoved with better understanding and facts. Scientific theories are not the same as scientic laws because they are not regarded as true for all cases.

I suppose you actually feel comfortable with the term "energy", well that so callled "simple energy" that has the power to come from nothing is who I call God. Atleast since you have proof of an uncaused cause I wonder what proof you still seek. It is not all the time that something comes from nothing, what you would simply say is that science has no clue where some of those things come from.

Infinity is a synonim for eternity. The example of numbers is evidence that infinty does exist. That is, somethings have no end.

Thank you!

striktlymi: Hi, Now you are getting me kinda confused. What's really your argument? Are you saying there is no God or are you trying to let me know about science? If the latter is the intent, I already know what scientific knowledge is about but if the former is what you are driving at, then make it a bit clearer.

To answer your earlier question more clearly, I am saying there is very little doubt there is no god (by most definitions, particularly the personal ones), and there's no need to invoke one, at all. It complicates things. If you do not think so then you probably do not understand how science works, or you're not willing to apply the scientific method here.

striktlymi: My defiinition of God might not be palatable to you but here it is:

God is a supernatural being who existed of himself and is infinite in all perfection.

God is the first cause who caused all other things to be without he himself being caused.

God is the unmoved mover.

Supernatural is simply science that has not been understood. Or are you implying something that could never be comprehended? If you are, you've now crossed the boundary into nonsense, and that cannot be classified as science. We can now assume anything goes, like the FSM. We'll also have to look at what "perfection" means to you. I assume 'god' is conscious, yes? How did it become conscious? By magic? And do you have any proof to suggest the supernatural exists?

striktlymi: God does not complicate things Humans do!

Begging the question. God, where? As far as we know, the concept was created by humans. The logic to support his case is weak and there's absolutely no empirical evidence to back the claim up. As we created the concept, we also create the problems then assign them to 'god'.

striktlymi: Now to your very insightful research: I have read a number of publications about the theory of Darwin and the big b.ang and really, to this very day not every scientist is convinced that, the theories are what actually happened. And when we think about it: the questions remain: what caused the big b.ang if there was one? The elements that acted to form the b.ang where did they come from? I am very sure you do not have answers to these. Even in the theory of evolution the same applies, there is no thought about what happened before evolution took place. Both postulations would remain at best: Theories!!! No one is in doubt about the order in science. This serves as the very basis of the principle that whatever has been set in motion was made so by some other force. This law has been tested and proving to be true for one, true for 2 upto the nth term and has been validated as true for all.

This has already been addressed. Do not confuse theories for scientific theories. Only thing you could criticize is their accuracy, or the details, which is fine. But that has also been addressed via "Effective Theories". Evolution is accepted by well over 90% of the scientific community by virtually all accounts, so your personal conclusions or those of the articles you read do not concur with mainstream science

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution#Scientific_support

Regardless of scientific support even, I've already pointed out how "I don't know"!="God did it". "I don't know" simply means; "I don't know".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps

"God did it" is not science, and has constantly been disproven. You're free to believe what you want to believe, but the path you're going down is definitely not scientific, or the logical thing to assume. If you agree with this then we don't have a problem.

To be specific though, conditions prior to the the big bang != big bang. Same with evolution, it is not abiogenesis.

For pre-big bang conditions, yes, science has no answer presently, and may never for various reasons. But there are also various hypothesis. And they remain just that, hypothesis, not scientific theories. They are not accepted as fact, at all. Your 'god' theory would also qualify as a hypothesis, not a fact, and the logical evidence to support it is weak, empirical evidence non existent. From all indications it's simply god of the gaps, again.

Abiogenesis has blurrier details than evolution. How it came about is still not entirely clear. Testing its various forms or details, considering conditions on early earth and time, is usually complex. But it is by far and away a better option than "god did it", which begs a rather larger question. Random article on abiogenesis and odds

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

striktlymi: Science is not in disagreement with the of a first cause. If you allow me borrow your words: this is simple logic. If the world starts going back back in time, we would get to a point where it all began for which we can't move any further and at that point we would arrive at the first cause. The issue of whether the first cause is not in existence because nothing caused it really shouldn't arrise cause no one, I repeat no one knows how the first cause did it. But the simple fact is that, the first cause or force if you like, did it. This first cause is who we call God.

The nature of first cause is the issue here, which is why I asked for your definition of god. You've replied with the claim of supernatural and perfect, I've responded above I believe. I also addressed this in the edit by mentioning that if something does come from nothing, why would you assume a complex god would form rather than some simple form of energy? Which do you think would logically be more likely to form from nothing? And note, considering uncertainty, something does come from nothing all the time in this universe. And it is; simple energy. An example

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect

Even now, as you read this, the particles that make up your body are constantly tuning themselves, phasing in and out of reality.

striktlymi: I believe that eternity does exist. A good example is with numbers. You can count from negative infinty to positive infinity. There is no end to a number. Once you think you have gotten to the end, add one or minus one and you would get another. The issue of eternity is factual and glaring for all to see.

I addressed this in my edit as well. What I meant to say is it's possible infinity does not exist in the physical world.

striktlymi: It therefore means that your decision is to adopt the: "If I cannot see it, touch it or experience it, then I don't think it exist". This too is very lame and weak cause if scientists adopts this stance then there won't be anything to discover.

It does not make sense to say someone's belief is false because the person cannot show you physically what he or she is talking about. There are a number of things that can't be seen or felt but it does not mean that they are not there.

As much as I believe in God I am also conscious to the fact that there are other beings too who we cannot see or touch. I have experienced such powers first hand before but this does not imply that I accept them. I haven't seen them, I haven't touched but I have experienced.

The only proof I believe you would be happy with is when I bring God to you for you to see and touch. This is not the way to knowledge, this is not the way to the truth. Your stance is really not in comformity with what is actually happening in the world. There are a number of things that happen which are beyond the physiccal but yet they are true. The fact that you have not experienced something does not mean others do not have experiences to share.

I guess we would have to leave this discourse till we go 6 feet under. Then we might know what happens next after now.

When you make a post now, do you see the signals as 1's and 0's zoom off into the horizon? You don't have to see or feel for yourself, but you definitely have to be able to test it. Or better yet, make testable predictions. That is all. You are now saying we cannot test your convictions unless we're dead.... Have you ever seen a dead person test anything? Oh, our souls, my bad. Can we empirically test anything about this souls? No? I should believe you just because you say so? Then why don't you believe Pikkiwokki is right now facing off an army of soap demons with his magical invisible mud?

I'm glad you can at least grasp how this works now. If I make the claim, before I expect you to take me seriously I'll have to provide you evidence else quite frankly, I'd be insulting in you. I would basically be dictating to you, and expecting you to follow me just because. That, I believe, is sometimes called dogma. I am not the boss of you, so why in the universe should you believe me just because?
Personally, you are welcome to believe in anything you wish to of course, so long as you don't infringe on the rights of others. But don't expect others to humor you if you don't have any evidence.

Like the bolded statements, you have no evidence for them, empirically or logically, then you shouldn't be making such assertions in a discussion like this. I'd be happy for you to prove me wrong. But if you can't, you're basically saying I should believe you just because you say so.

striktlymi: And really, I am curious why u went to so much length, making research about what you don't even believe. The theory of evolution can't explain what happened before then; the big b.ang theory also can't say much about what caused it. So really it seem a complete waste of your time. All you had to do was say "I am an atheist and I reject the belief of gods". I think this would have made much sense.

Yea, this is trollish. You asked me to explain myself, more or else, I spend time doing so then you say I shouldn't have? Also, I personally shouldn't seek knowledge because? What makes you think that I did the research(?) just now for the sake of this discussion anyhow? I have addressed basically everything you've asked for, including abiogenesis and pre-big bang, you're unhappy because I don't subscribe to your baseless "because I say so" claims, then you make it sound like I did something wrong...Well

striktlymi: Hi,
I guess you are getting yourself "confused". If Atheism is not the rejection of the belief in God I wonder what is. Note that to reject something implies that the person rejecting has some basis to show that what he or she is rejecting is actually false, if indeed you (let me not say atheist cause I don't think you speak. For all of them) are in search of the truth or if indeed you believe that rejecting the belief in God is true then you would have proofs to show that your rejection is in order.

Lack of belief, non. I've already told you why I don't believe, there's no evidence to support one. You've not provided any other than 'I say so' and maybe first cause. For first cause, like I've already stated, if the big bang did come from something and is not the uncaused caused, then it likely came from some form of basic energy. Assuming something complex and conscious would be violating ockhams razor. Can you think of any way something would acquire complexity out of the blue? With us and haphazard evolution, big bang and star formation and planets etc, it's taken 14 billion years to come up with conscious beings. The pattern from nature is always simple to complex, not the other way round. There aren't even any theories that could dream up something showing
up conscious, except maybe magic.

Now supposing some consciousness set off the big bang, it too most have been formed by some simple form of energy, that would technically be the uncaused cause, or first cause. Any such being will be likely subject to some laws, so the supernatural bit is a stretch as well.

striktlymi: The example you gave does not follow and frankly I think is baseless. I believe firmly that everyone has a right to choose what and who to believe in. If that individual in your analogy choose to believe in his god, all well and good for him. The fact that he says so many things about what his God wants and go to the extent of threatening people for thiis is also his personal beliefs. No one is compelled to believe what he freely chooses.

It does follow, because it demonstrates who the burden of proof lies with. The rest of this part is correct though, there's definitely no compulsion.

striktlymi: However, it would be very wrong to say because I don't think what he is saying is true, then the god he speaks of does not exist is very incorrect. The best I can say is that I do not believe in his god.

Not necessarily, it depends on the nature of the claim. Just like I say there are no people in my tv despite what anyone else says. For unverifiable claims, yes you cannot fully discard them. But you certainly don't need to consider them seriously as well, depending on their nature of course.

striktlymi: Also saying that the item in bold (your post) is wrong without you proving it is not thee scientific way you have been talking about.

Again, you don't understand the burden, you haven't provided any evidence (well, except maybe first cause, but depending on your definition of god, that is weak, and I had addressed that before, like I've said), so I cannot take your claims seriously. Provide evidence, then I'll see about disproving it if it is valid, else I'm not wasting time disproving something that isn't there. If it is genuinely valid, I will gladly change my position.

TroGunn: The person denying existence God has equal burden to proof his position. "It is logically erroneous to assert that positive truth claims bear a burden of proof while negative truth claims do not". All "truth claims bear a burden of proof, and that like Mother Goose and the tooth fairy, the teapot bears the greater burden not because of its negativity but because of its triviality, arguing that "When we substitute normal, serious characters such as Plato, Nero, Winston Churchill, or George Washington in place of these fictional characters, it becomes clear that anyone denying the existence of these figures has a burden of proof equal to, or in some cases greater than, the person claiming they do exist."

This doesn't make much sense, at all. But addressing it, absolutely not. I am not making any claims. I do not know how the big ban.g took place, nobody knows, like you've already said. What I do know, to a great degree of certainty, is that there are no gods. Just like I know there are no invisible men in my tv operating it. There is no evidence to support the notion, especially of personal gods, at all.

I am not forcing my views on you, you can believe in whatever you want to. But if we were to engage in any type of business together, the default position for both of us would be to operate around verifiable facts. Any laws/dogma in your religious books? Throw them out. If I were a member of some atheistic religion, I would toss out my books as well. But religious people have a tendency to mistake their dogma for fact, and introduce it into places it shouldn't be.

Jehova's witness recently let his wife die by refusing to sign papers allowing a blood transfusion while she was in a coma. He based his actions around his faith and god. Now, supposing that were my wife, and the doctor was a jw and told me he couldn't administer the blood because of his religious beliefs, do you really think I should first disprove the existence of his yet to be proven god to him? Now flip the situation around again and assume I were the doctor, I had some sort of legal authority to administer the blood, and I was also aware of the fact that she wanted to live. I surely would administer the drug, over the eediots jw husband's objections. Why? Facts are, I know the blood would save her and I also know she wants to live. My decisions are not based around unverified claims, they are based around facts. Unlike whatever faith-based religious nonsense motivated the husband to let his wife die.

In god we trust. God will provide. Homosexuality is bad because god says so. We'll get 72 virgins for blowing ourselves up. So and so is good or bad because god says so. For any action at all that you justify by invoking god, I have to ask what god? Where in the universe is he siding? We aren't the ones basing our actions around unverifiable claims.
You are the one claiming there's a tea cup in orbit. Before you expect me to indulge you, best be sure you can backup your claims. I don't see a teacup anywhere there, and I'm not going to accept your claims just because you say so. I also have absolutely nothing to defend, you haven't even shown me the teacup exists, empirically or logically. You expect me to waste my time proving an invisible teacup isn't there?

striktlymi: @Wiegraf

Hi,
Are you sure you have made no claims of your own? I thought you were an atheist? I guess I thought wrong. But if you are then you should note that a fundamental belief of atheism is that there is no God. This is a claim that is not backed up by science.


Note that the proof of God's existence through the argument of a "First cause" is there for all to see. The big b.ang theory, the theory of evolution etc are really not attempts at proving the existence or lack of existence of God. These theories basically are attempts to tell us how the world began and how humans came to be.

Since your last comment suggest that you are not an atheist, I am quite curious to know were you pitch your tent. I know it's not religion!

Thank you!

I am an atheist, bordering on being a militant one sef. You seem to be unfamiliar with a few basics. The bold is completely wrong in most contexts, we may get back to that. You don't have a good grasp of what atheism is as well. Think carefully about this statement; it's not that we belief there are no gods, it's that we don't belief there are any gods. We are not asserting anything, you have to prove to us that there is one. Just like you'd expect me to if I told you that santa really exists.

To expatiate, my god pikkiwokki, says you should give me 15% of your belongings to prove your loyalty to him. If you don't do this, who knows what sort of disasters may befall you and your family, etc. Also, he does not want you going out past 6pm, because from that time till dawn he will be fighting demons in pikkiwokkiland, and he doesn't want distractions. You break these laws, then he has decreed that you would spend eternity trapped in mud while demons use bamboo sticks to cut your head off, repeatedly. What would your response be?

I suggest you read this as well

Http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

Reyginus: Lolololololol. In that case, another prophet will be re-incarnated.

This makes sense actually

Reyginus: Lolol. Or even better, obadiah777 and buzugee.

That could be dangerous. What if they decide to settle the issue by seeing who can drink more of that 'red wine' they seem to love?

Reyginus: Is that the problem?

More or else, yup

Reyginus: lol. AbdulSleek deserves something better than the award. The dude is Mr Religion section.

Come to think about it, maybe I should nominate logicboy and abdulsleek

Reyginus: lol. Where is it so?

Don't get me wrong, your answer may be good enough. But if this OT we're talking, I'm more inclined to believe they were simply being racist in some way or the other. They were fairly barbaric and not particularly cultured, in a manner of speak. These are the same people who would have killed you for working on sabbath. I doubt they were as sophisticated as you make them out to be. But you could be right. Note, I obviously don't think any gods were involved in writing it, just humans being barbarians.

Reyginus: I thought I ended this here Any other problem guys?

You give some goat herders who lived 2000+ years ago too much credit.

@strict

Ah, I see, you embedded the answer in there. Too long, and I don't have the time. But for most of that post you clearly don't understand how the burden of proof works.

What you are doing here is a very basic mistake. I'm not the one making a claim here, you are. You claim there is a god, not me, and you expect me to just accept that on what, faith? Again, where's your evidence? In that case I say to you pikkiwokki created the universe using his cosmic mud, not abrahamic god. Accept it on faith. No? Prove me wrong.

How do you expect one to disprove something you've not even proven anyhow? You've not even presented testable or falsifiable evidence, or made any predictions. Evolution, look at fossils and microevolution. Big bang, expansion of the universe, cosmic background radiation, etc. No such thing for god, at all, except weak logic. Usually being made on the spot no less. If there's nothing there, then there's nothing to disprove.

Note, not believing in something that has not been proven is the very way to go. Or do you believe in santa? Do you believe in thor and zeus, or any of the myriad other gods you do not subscribe to?

And if you've not proven a god exists, yet you invoke it as an explanation to some phenomenon, then you are clearly begging the question

Anyways, for now, this for burden of proof
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

And this for arguing from ignorance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

striktlymi: Good morning, I trust you slept well. I have tried to respond to your querries and thoughts below. Sorry, I couldn't do that yesterday night cause I slept off.


[font=Lucida Sans Unicode][/font]

Infinity is a synonim for eternity. The example of numbers is evidence that infinty does exist. That is, somethings have no end.

Thank you!

Heh, you still don't get it, I said in the 'physical' world (or rather, I amended it to say that). There are definitely infinities in abstractions. You're under no obligation to reply btw, kudos.

Logicboy and muskeeto

Logicboy has already won this. Well, considering most of the site is xtian, anonymania may prevail. ~gross~
Why only 2 na? Maybe add categories? Anyone placing bets?


Edit: pdp? No. Less fun without mosquitoes. Less good bumps to scratch

Nice thread op. Decency and tolerance, all round, I'm still not sure why this is a big issue in this day and age. I am probably guilty of the similar crimes at times though, but that maybe just comes with being part of the vocal minority, like you indicate. Also, seems a lot of bigots in /religion, hard to reason with them...

Logicboy03: The guy weaken me, no be small.


I dont know whether Sweetnecta is telling a story or debating.


Whatever sha, I still like the guy!

You have to understand that you're a decent bro, with love for everyone. Sadly, I'm not (most of the time it seems), and I'm quite happy that way

Van snickers: Hmmmm,is this not the religion Mitt Romney is a member of?

He's not just an ordinary member as well, he's some sort of high priest

Van snickers: What are Mormons?

You've not heard of them? You probably have but were not paying attention. A spinoff xtianity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latter_Day_Saint_movement

Their founder eventually hanged by a mob, for 419,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Smith,_Jr.

Despite that, today there are 14 million members. They have some history with black people

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_people_and_Mormonism

But that article is a little too tepid for my liking, culling from a slightly more colorful one:

"It was Smith’s successor, Brigham Young, who adopted the policies that now haunt the church. He described black people as cursed with dark skin as punishment for Cain’s murder of his brother. “Any man having one drop of the seed of Cane in him cannot hold the priesthood,” he declared in 1852. Young deemed black-white intermarriage so sinful that he suggested that a man could atone for it only by having “his head cut off” and spilling “his blood upon the ground.” Other Mormon leaders convinced themselves that the pre-existent spirits of black people had sinned in heaven by supporting Lucifer in his rebellion against God. "

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/19/opinion/sunday/racism-and-the-mormon-church.html

tpia1: I wish someone would tell that fellow to stop parading his low IQ.


Quite embarassing.

Address me directly, rather than looking for help, oh pathetic one. Or is that statement all your programming prescribes? Try "fo.ol" as your bible recommends maybe?

Seems I've met my match as far as childish antics are concerned. You're on your own as far as being a miserable half-wit is concerned though. Also, do note, I never said you claimed I had a low IQ. I said you go around parroting the same inane $hit on various threads. Now though, you confirm you think I have a low IQ. Of course, I am aware that being an eediot makes you an expert on IQs.


Agh, back to work...

Sweetnecta: @wiegraf: disingenuous statement. if my my way is religion to you. your way which is includes you denying my way, setting up rules for me so that i must be silent when you want me to is also a religion in my own view. when you deny me my right of expression and evidential belief, that is oppression. oppression is worse than killing.

I don't understand this. What in the world are you on about? Did you even read the post? Which section is it that censors critics again? I infringe on your rights how? Mockery etc does not equal oppression, in what universe? I've told you many times that you have the right to be offended, to say whatever you wish to so long as it does not directly call for physical harm, just like I do. Even if whatever you have to say is in poor taste to me, it is your right.

This is really simple, it boils down to 'live and let live'. If your 'live' involves infringing on the rights of others, then yes, I will be in your face. I would expect you return the favor if you see me infringing on another's rights as well.

The bold is debatable as well, even if for me that definitely holds true. But that is another issue.

tpia1: hmm, sensitive about his low IQ.

Ok. So do you have anything to add, or is that really all you're capable of saying? Across how many threads now? Including that brilliant one where you concluded programmers do not have high IQs because they are 'anti-god'. So, anti-god equals low IQ in your universe? Interesting. Do you know what IQ means? You made that thread blissfully typing away on a machine built around the work of a gay atheist, and posted it on the site of an atheist. I'm sure the many atheist, or anti-god as you put it, scientists that have given you all the nice things you enjoy also had low IQs as well, yes?

That's the sort of reasoning I'd expect from say a cartoon villain. Or the miserable, evil, religious, psycho bi.tch you see in movies who is generally just pissed off because well, no one likes her. This translates usually to she really just needs a good sha.g to lessen her misery, so she can feel loved. As there's non coming, god!! He's the answer to every thing, and you love him very much, don't you? Good luck with getting the sh.ag btw, that could be a problem. Anyways, the simpler explanation though for your shoddy reasoning is, no doubt, that you are just a m.oron. A combo of the two is possible and rather likely as well, you're a miserable m.oron.

If you're going to be a slowpoke, at least try and be a happy m.oron. No one likes sad m.orons. Gotta get to work, only so much time to deal with eediocy

tpia1: with all your getting, get wisdom.


why are you so sensitive about having low IQ?

you thought you had high IQ?

More unadulterated stoopid, I should be asking you why you're so insecure about your IQ, since you seem obsessed with it. So, why are you obsessed with appearing like you have a high IQ? You clearly don't, but you wouldn't notice it being you're stoopid. See how logic works?

Logicboy03: Tpia, you are better than this.......

Evidently, you give her faaaar too much credit. She's a buffoon, constantly clueless in most posts of hers I see in these here parts.

tpia1: low self esteem, low IQ thread.

Are you a bot? You seem to say this all the time. Whoever wrote your programming didn't make you intelligent, at all. Those are some poor programming skills, I hope he has another job.

You've heard the one about why jews have such big noses? Because air is free! *ba-dum-tiss* Get it! Because air, free and jews...never mind, I'll let it be, for now...

To answer your earlier question more clearly, I am saying there is very little doubt there is no god (by most definitions, particularly the personal ones), and there's no need to invoke one, at all. It complicates things. If you do not think so then you probably do not understand how science works, or you're not willing to apply the scientific method here.

striktlymi: My defiinition of God might not be palatable to you but here it is:

God is a supernatural being who existed of himself and is infinite in all perfection.

God is the first cause who caused all other things to be without he himself being caused.

God is the unmoved mover.

Supernatural is simply science that has not been understood. Or are you implying something that could never be comprehended? If you are, you've now crossed the boundary into nonsense, and that cannot be classified as science. We can now assume anything goes, like the FSM. We'll also have to look at what "perfection" means to you. I assume 'god' is conscious, yes? How did it become conscious? By magic? And do you have any proof to suggest the supernatural exists?

striktlymi: God does not complicate things Humans do!

Begging the question. God, where? As far as we know, the concept was created by humans. The logic to support his case is weak and there's absolutely no empirical evidence to back the claim up. As we created the concept, we also create the problems then assign them to 'god'.

striktlymi: Now to your very insightful research: I have read a number of publications about the theory of Darwin and the big b.ang and really, to this very day not every scientist is convinced that, the theories are what actually happened. And when we think about it: the questions remain: what caused the big b.ang if there was one? The elements that acted to form the b.ang where did they come from? I am very sure you do not have answers to these. Even in the theory of evolution the same applies, there is no thought about what happened before evolution took place. Both postulations would remain at best: Theories!!! No one is in doubt about the order in science. This serves as the very basis of the principle that whatever has been set in motion was made so by some other force. This law has been tested and proving to be true for one, true for 2 upto the nth term and has been validated as true for all.

This has already been addressed. Do not confuse theories for scientific theories. Only thing you could criticize is their accuracy, or the details, which is fine. But that has also been addressed via "Effective Theories". Evolution is accepted by well over 90% of the scientific community by virtually all accounts, so your personal conclusions or those of the articles you read do not concur with mainstream science

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution#Scientific_support

Regardless of scientific support even, I've already pointed out how "I don't know"!="God did it". "I don't know" simply means; "I don't know".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps

"God did it" is not science, and has constantly been disproven. You're free to believe what you want to believe, but the path you're going down is definitely not scientific, or the logical thing to assume. If you agree with this then we don't have a problem.

To be specific though, conditions prior to the the big bang != big bang. Same with evolution, it is not abiogenesis.

For pre-big bang conditions, yes, science has no answer presently, and may never for various reasons. But there are also various hypothesis. And they remain just that, hypothesis, not scientific theories. They are not accepted as fact, at all. Your 'god' theory would also qualify as a hypothesis, not a fact, and the logical evidence to support it is weak, empirical evidence non existent. From all indications it's simply god of the gaps, again.

Abiogenesis has blurrier details than evolution. How it came about is still not entirely clear. Testing its various forms or details, considering conditions on early earth and time, is usually complex. But it is by far and away a better option than "god did it", which begs a rather larger question. Random article on abiogenesis and odds

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

striktlymi: Science is not in disagreement with the of a first cause. If you allow me borrow your words: this is simple logic. If the world starts going back back in time, we would get to a point where it all began for which we can't move any further and at that point we would arrive at the first cause. The issue of whether the first cause is not in existence because nothing caused it really shouldn't arrise cause no one, I repeat no one knows how the first cause did it. But the simple fact is that, the first cause or force if you like, did it. This first cause is who we call God.

The nature of first cause is the issue here, which is why I asked for your definition of god. You've replied with the claim of supernatural and perfect, I've responded above I believe. I also addressed this in the edit by mentioning that if something does come from nothing, why would you assume a complex god would form rather than some simple form of energy? Which do you think would logically be more likely to form from nothing? And note, considering uncertainty, something does come from nothing all the time in this universe. And it is; simple energy. An example

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect

Even now, as you read this, the particles that make up your body are constantly tuning themselves, phasing in and out of reality.

striktlymi: I believe that eternity does exist. A good example is with numbers. You can count from negative infinty to positive infinity. There is no end to a number. Once you think you have gotten to the end, add one or minus one and you would get another. The issue of eternity is factual and glaring for all to see.

I addressed this in my edit as well. What I meant to say is it's possible infinity does not exist in the physical world.

striktlymi: Hi, Now you are getting me kinda confused. What's really your argument? Are you saying there is no God or are you trying to let me know about science? If the latter is the intent, I already know what scientific knowledge is about but if the former is what you are driving at, then make it a bit clearer.

Both more or else. We'll get round to that. First, define 'god', if you will

Idi-Amin:
Leviticus 21
16 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,

17 Speak unto Aaron, saying, Whosoever he be of thy seed in their generations that hath any blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God.

18 For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous,

19 Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded,

20 Or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken;
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I take this personal as I have the best looking nose in the world. It is flat and broad. I can drag in enough fresh air with my big flat nostrils and won't exchange this nose for any other.
First of all, this bible god calls a flat nose 'a blemish' - i.e. a deformity, an imperfection, a flaw, an impairment.
And this jewish bible god categorises having a flat nose together with being blind or crippled. This bible god groups them in the same category, and orders them not to approach him.

So why are a lot of Africans with their flat noses still bowing down to this jewish god?

Is there a way to give a post 1000 likes?

There are black mormons. I'm not even sure how that computes

@strykt

Yeah, I edited my first draft and it addresses a few of the issues you raise, but you had already replied before my edits*. Read my post again, if there's anything you want to add/remove from your response, do so then I'll address your post. Else, I'll just proceed as is.

Note though, the path you're going down you'll have to define 'god'. In particular, is it conscious?

I've also purposely left abiogenesis out of the discussion.



*Sorry about that, most people don't reply immediately so I usually edit my initial posts (good for you, your quick response indicates you are using your own reasoning rather than just copy/paste from the web or some pastor etc, not that that is necessarily a bad thing though). Of course I indicate I've edited them after I do.