The contradiction between atheism and science . (gospel, service, pope, morality)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Amazingly his position makes even less sense from you than from him himself. But if that is what you think his position is then I hope you also realise it is unsubstantiated nonsense from sentence 1. And the cop out excuse for it being unsubstantiated is already there in sentence 2.
So how you found anything well thought out or explained in any of it is beyond me I am afraid. Though I guess ONE thing you did say is true. He does know what he is talking about. Even the most insane babbler in the corner of an asylum probably has a good idea for themselves what they are talking about. That does not mean it is not nonsense out here in reality world.
The idea that the universe must be concious because we are is not "well thought out". It is just a fanciful idea made up from nothing and declared at us by fiat without a single ounce of substantiation.
Atheists always boast that they only believe in science and logic
well .. let's put that statement to the test
YOU HAVEN'T THE SLIGHTEST CLUE WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.
Quote:
1 - Atheism violates the first law of Newton
The first law of Newton says that "an object at rest will stay at rest and an object in steady motion tends to stay in motion unless acted upon by an external force (static or dynamic)."
So there must be an external force that made the Big Bang to happen at that very moment and forced the universe to begin at that very moment.
2 - Atheism violates the first law of thermodynamics
Law of Conservation of energy or what is known as the first law of thermodynamics says ((matter/energy cannot be created nor can it be destroyed.)) If we contemplate in this law, we come to conclusion that the universe cannot exist. According to this law, the universe does not exist or it's present in the presence of the Creator.
3 - Atheism violates the second law of thermodynamics
The second law of thermodynamic says that the universe is now heading towards thermal death when the temperature of all organisms and particles becomes equal. So the universe as scientists say is heading toward disintegration, towards demolition, towards cooling and towards thermal death “thermal death of universe”, while atheism says that the universe is moving towards complexity and towards building a struggle to develop. So scholars consider the second law of thermodynamic to carry the end of Darwinism and selective evolution. And these are laws, not theories.. so the science on the side while atheism and Darwinism are completely on the other side .
The list contain 20 contradictions ..very interesting .. you should check it Deep talk about atheism
...
Really, this level of stupidity boggles my brain.
Do you have any idea what "complexity" in this context means? Were you seriously under the impression that the 3rd law of thermodynamics referred to some arbitrary "complexity", rather than entropy, and that building "ordered" things out of unordered things was impossible?
Wait, so how the **** do we build skyscrapers then? How the **** did you develop from a fetus into a mostly functioning human?
Amazingly his position makes even less sense from you than from him himself. But if that is what you think his position is then I hope you also realise it is unsubstantiated nonsense from sentence 1. And the cop out excuse for it being unsubstantiated is already there in sentence 2.
So how you found anything well thought out or explained in any of it is beyond me I am afraid. Though I guess ONE thing you did say is true. He does know what he is talking about. Even the most insane babbler in the corner of an asylum probably has a good idea for themselves what they are talking about. That does not mean it is not nonsense out here in reality world.
The idea that the universe must be concious because we are is not "well thought out". It is just a fanciful idea made up from nothing and declared at us by fiat without a single ounce of substantiation.
Mystic knows well that I disagree with him on the rationale. If I made it sound poorly thought out, probably the fault is mine.
Your diety is neither the first nor the last "true god that created the universe".
How do you know exactly all of the detailed characteristics of his/her diety of worship is?
How do you know exactly the process of how the universe was created?
Are you claiming a diety-like awareness?
Quote:
Fact of the matter is that there is no evidence whatsoever of a god or creator - none, zip, zero, nada.
BS.
You are living proof of both a god and a creator...
You have an ultimate concern, aka a god... something or aspect or person you prioritize or worship.
You have been created by 2 creators... your parents, who were created by creators... & so on.
To go along with herd mentality of warped diety definitions from centuries ago and not clearly see the reality of worship and creation today is "cowardly, if you ask me."
Do you have any idea what "complexity" in this context means? Were you seriously under the impression that the 3rd law of thermodynamics referred to some arbitrary "complexity", rather than entropy, and that building "ordered" things out of unordered things was impossible?
Wait, so how the **** do we build skyscrapers then? How the **** did you develop from a fetus into a mostly functioning human?
Your arrogance is astounding.
And even more tragic is that the ignorance and arrogance are both willful.
Seen the same levels of stunningly willful ignorance in followers of other belief systems also, the common denominator, basing reality solely on an absurd collection of fairy tales and fantasy. Some are totally clueless about society and our laws, some are so astoundingly ignorant about basic science and physics that I can't understand how they ever got out of school.
How do you know exactly the process of how the universe was created?
Nobody does. But "we don't know, ergo God" is ****-poor logic.
Quote:
You have been created by 2 creators... your parents, who were created by creators... & so on.
And so on, and so on... - until you run smack dab into the problem of infinite regression. In which case you have to either go for special pleading "All things are created, hence there must be an ultimate creator. Who's - ehm - special, hence uncreated. Please ignore the first part of the syllogism."
Or you can just go where the evidence takes you. It appears the universe is kinda uncaring. There is no evidence of a benevolent creator. Too bad, but them's the breaks.
I believe that the reasons are much deeper than that. Otherwise they would not spend so much time ridiculing and demonizing God.
I have heard this a million times:
There is no God
If there is a God He is evil
I refuse to worship God because he is evil
You don't get it, do you?
Athiests. Do not. Believe. In a God.
They don't 'refuse' to worship God -- they have come to the conclusion that God -- whether he's good, evil, or standing on his head playing the piccolo* -- does not exist at all.
If he does not exist, then atheists cannot worship him or refuse to do so.
*I, for the record, think that the piccolo thing would actually be pretty entertaining to see.
Last edited by FredNotBob; 09-04-2012 at 11:50 PM..
Reason: Clarity of expression.
I was thinking something similar. I am not sure how to evaluate or critique a LACK of a position. Atheist is about not being convinced by the claim there is a god. It is therefore not a position in and of itself but a refusal to adopt someone elses unsubstantiated position.
Atheism is about not being convinced by the claim there is a god.
The above definition/statement is valid only with atheists who did not bother to educate themselves in religious matters.
I am an atheist and I believe that the true god is the Pope. He is the last one in a long line of men who claimed, admitted (the Pharaohs, Alexander, Caesar) or were recognized as immaterial gods post mortem (Jesus, hosts of Saints, George Washington).
The belief in the existence of the soul is the fruit of a theological theory. Did you ever read any paper informing scholars about the author of the theory?
There is no such paper because the story of the conception of the idea of the soul theory is ridiculous. The idea was produced by mistake: they misunderstood the meaning of a word!
How did the idea of the immaterial gods came to be? They believed a joke told about gods (the true, earthly gods of the past)!!
“Soul” is actually a devoid of meaning word and “God” is the product of a joke.
So, now, you know how an atheist thinks. He does not even deign to busy himself with the claim that there is an immaterial heavenly god. Gods are the popes and the patriarchs and kings.
Atheism is about not being convinced by the claim there is a god.
The above definition/statement is valid only with atheists who did not bother to educate themselves in religious matters.
I am an atheist and I believe that the true god is the Pope. He is the last one in a long line of men who claimed, admitted (the Pharaohs, Alexander, Caesar) or were recognized as immaterial gods post mortem (Jesus, hosts of Saints, George Washington).
The belief in the existence of the soul is the fruit of a theological theory. Did you ever read any paper informing scholars about the author of the theory?
There is no such paper because the story of the conception of the idea of the soul theory is ridiculous. The idea was produced by mistake: they misunderstood the meaning of a word!
How did the idea of the immaterial gods came to be? They believed a joke told about gods (the true, earthly gods of the past)!!
“Soul” is actually a devoid of meaning word and “God” is the product of a joke.
So, now, you know how an atheist thinks. He does not even deign to busy himself with the claim that there is an immaterial heavenly god. Gods are the popes and the patriarchs and kings.
What an absurdly Eurocentric view of human spirituality! You think the concept of the divine is entirely summed up by the hierarchal rule giver cults of the early middle east? Pure oversimplification buddy! Not all human deities have their origins in the worship of god-kings, even pre-agrarian mostly egalitarian societies have gods, so it seems kinda obvious they were just co-opting the symbolic and social power of myths that pre-dated the institution of monarchy. No, the origin of religious belief systems is much more complicated than that.
Mystic knows well that I disagree with him on the rationale. If I made it sound poorly thought out, probably the fault is mine.
Not at all. The material you had to work with was poor from square 1. There simply is nothing well thought out in there. It is just fanciful notions, plucked from nowhere, using sciencey sounding words to make it sound scientific in the style of Deepak Chopra.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But if that is what you think his position is then I hope you also realise it is unsubstantiated nonsense from sentence 1. And the cop out excuse for it being unsubstantiated is already there in sentence 2. 
