Notice the words "new theories." Theories are fun, intriguing things that might be great ideas, but are not known to be facts. People can invent theories all day long.
You mean like theory of gravity. LOL... The existence of a force that we call gravity is not a theory. The theory part has to do with what exactly gravity is.  If you try to "prove gravity" all you can do is show that, locally to you, things tend to move from up to down. This doesn't "prove" gravity, since your experiences in the past can't be considered predictive unless you have a theory to explain why we might expect gravity to act the same way in the future, and this is why there are no "science facts". Since the force of gravity is universal in everything that we have experience with, and since the only way to overcome it takes effort and force, gravity is a law. The "Law of Gravity" is a theory, not a fact. If we find information that this is in some way wrong, we'll change it to make it correct. |
|
|
|
Notice the words "new theories." Theories are fun, intriguing things that might be great ideas, but are not known to be facts. People can invent theories all day long.
You mean like theory of gravity. LOL... The existence of a force that we call gravity is not a theory. The theory part has to do with what exactly gravity is. If you try to "prove gravity" all you can do is show that, locally to you, things tend to move from up to down. This doesn't "prove" gravity, since your experiences in the past can't be considered predictive unless you have a theory to explain why we might expect gravity to act the same way in the future, and this is why there are no "science facts".
|
|
|
|
Again, evolution is theory. Theory means that it is not necessarily fact. Thus you can't factually say that the human mind has evolution behind it. However, the things that I have been showing you regarding science FACT, prove that there is great Intelligence behind the making of mankind and everything else.
There is no such thing as a "science FACT" . There are only theories with more or less evidence to back them up. |
|
|
|
This brings us to entropy. Entropy at its base and core suggests everything is in dispersal mode. Everything is trying to diffuse itself evenly and equaly throughout all space/time. While there is much theoretical thinking about entropy, nobody has found anything that could be considered reverse entropy.
This is a misunderstanding of entropy. There are many examples of a local decrease in entropy, which would result in an increase in entropy elsewhere. One of the main features that we see in complexity is, nothing that is more complex comes about because of, or from, something less complex. For example. A highly complex snowflake seems to come from a much less complex batch of water molecules. Yet, the conditions of temperature and air movements and dust in the air and solar energy, are actually way more complex than the snowflake that they form out of the less complex water.
This is another misunderstanding of entropy. While it may appear 'simple' to you, a snowflake is much lower entropy (more 'ordered') than the water vapour from which they form. Summary: * Entropy can decrease locally * Complexity does not always correlate with entropy. Before a farmer shoots grain into his granary the first time for the year, he sweeps the granary clean. Usually there is at least some dust, if not grain shells from the previous season. When he starts sweeping, the job is easy, because there is a lot of garbage to sweep up. But as he gets down to the last little bit, it becomes difficult, simply because there is so little left that he has to work at getting it all. If you heat a chunk of iron up, and cool another chunk down, and then press the two together, the heat transfer is fast at first. But the closer the chunks get to being the same temperature, the longer it takes for the remaining heat difference to move. Why would anyone think that entropy needs to remain at a constant throughout the universe? That isn't the point. The point is that entropy exists throughout the universe. At any place that there seems to be reverse entropy somewhere in the universe, there is greater entropy in whatever caused the appearance of reverse entropy. And that is why more ordered things (eg snowflakes) can be created by less ordered things (water vapour, dirt particles). Whichever way you wish to describe complexity, more complex do come about because of, or from, something less complex. |
|
|
|
This brings us to entropy. Entropy at its base and core suggests everything is in dispersal mode. Everything is trying to diffuse itself evenly and equaly throughout all space/time. While there is much theoretical thinking about entropy, nobody has found anything that could be considered reverse entropy.
This is a misunderstanding of entropy. There are many examples of a local decrease in entropy, which would result in an increase in entropy elsewhere. One of the main features that we see in complexity is, nothing that is more complex comes about because of, or from, something less complex. For example. A highly complex snowflake seems to come from a much less complex batch of water molecules. Yet, the conditions of temperature and air movements and dust in the air and solar energy, are actually way more complex than the snowflake that they form out of the less complex water.
This is another misunderstanding of entropy. While it may appear 'simple' to you, a snowflake is much lower entropy (more 'ordered') than the water vapour from which they form. Summary: * Entropy can decrease locally * Complexity does not always correlate with entropy. |
|
|
|
...
The holy books are changed over years.... Except the holy Quran...
Why would you want them to change? They are funny, ridiculous and vile the way they are. Unless you wanted to add some more ridiculous and funny stuff... My guess is God did not like science very much. It is understandable since he was 'born' thousands of years ago. He just did not know that Earth rotates around the Sun and that there is no dome over it or pillars supporting it. He wrote what he knew. Your guess is wrong dude... The god, who created the entire world, without the permission of god even a single leaf cannot move, you think he doesn't know all those things... He created so wonderful things that are required by us, and we, instead of praising the bounties, complaining... The human being, because of his own comfort, changed the holy books over time, but the last holy book is still remained unchanged.... Which one is the one that remained unchanged? thousands of years ago. The holy Quran is unchanged... It is revealed to the last prophet mohammed saw.... Now please don't speak nonsense about others religion... I respect your religion, even i you are atheist I have no problem with it, and you should not have problem with others religious views... Maybe there are some small differences - there's quite a good bit of information here that will interest you, especially the parts about Mohammed forgetting parts of the Quran: http://www.studytoanswer.net/myths_ch1.html |
|
|
|
...
The holy books are changed over years.... Except the holy Quran...
Why would you want them to change? They are funny, ridiculous and vile the way they are. Unless you wanted to add some more ridiculous and funny stuff... My guess is God did not like science very much. It is understandable since he was 'born' thousands of years ago. He just did not know that Earth rotates around the Sun and that there is no dome over it or pillars supporting it. He wrote what he knew. Your guess is wrong dude... The god, who created the entire world, without the permission of god even a single leaf cannot move, you think he doesn't know all those things... He created so wonderful things that are required by us, and we, instead of praising the bounties, complaining... The human being, because of his own comfort, changed the holy books over time, but the last holy book is still remained unchanged.... Which one is the one that remained unchanged? |
|
|
|
You need science to prop up your faith in God. Christians I know have a very strong faith in God, without any need for science.
I find your lack of faith disturbing.
Star Wars reference! That's it! +1!! Man, I haven't laughed like this in a long time. Thank you! Kudos to you - you're the first to get it. Have to admit, I was doing some sniggering myself when I wrote it. |
|
|
|
I have no problem with faith. It's only when you try to present science as faith that I have a problem.
Of course you have a problem: you have no Faith!Science comes from Wisdom which comes from fearing the Lord.You are trying to get Science without Wisdom: there is no Science in stupidity, you need to find Wisdom!Wisdom comes from fearing the Lord so you need to start to have Faith. I have no need to start a war against anything, but if I ever do I know just the wannabe genocidal maniac to get in touch with.
Instead arguing: starts to have Faith and you will find Wisdom and hence Science. For any doubt or information feel free to ask. Best regards. It's like you're typing words without thinking. Your arguments make no sense. I have reason to believe that at least some of the time BitNow is actually a chatbot. |
|
|
|
Am I the only one who hates how BitNow always finish his posts by "bets regards" while saying horrible shit and how BADecker finishes by a comptemptful smile even though he just said horrible thins?
It doesn't worry me at all! Best regards |
|
|
|
I've made no ad hominem attacks, subtle or otherwise. I've called you names, sure ( egotistical, callous, unfeeling, incompetent, illogical, easily upset, childish, are just a few that I've either used or consider using) but I haven't done so in the hopes of using that to win an argument. You do.
Thank you, again, for more confirmation of the scientifically proven fact that God exists. I've made no proof that god exists. You're lying -- unless you'd like to quote the section where I did that? Rather than focus on disproving it, you focus on me, and maybe yourself. Why do you do this? Simply because you don't have any real evidence that the science I have expressed DOESN'T prove that God exists. Thanks again. I don't just "focus on you". I also respond to BitNow, and anyone who posts unsupportable and made up "facts". Why do you do this? Simply because you don't have any real evidence that the science I have expressed DOESN'T prove that God exists. Thanks again. I don't need or even want to prove god doesn't exist. Who knows, a universe creating god that meddles in human affairs might really exist, and it would be *very* interesting times if that was the case! No, I just need to show that a given "proof" that god does exist is in some way logically or scientifically incorrect. If I happen to miss responding to one of your posts that helps to prove that God exists, please don't take it personally. The thanks is meant to cover even those posts. No one here has proven god exists. So, thank you, again, for not refuting the fact that science has proven that God exists... since your continual attempts to circumvent any refuting that you might do are essentially, strengthening of the proofs. I don't need or even want to prove god doesn't exist. Who knows, a universe creating god that meddles in human affairs might really exist, and it would be *very* interesting times if that was the case! No, I just need to show that a given "proof" that god does exist is in some way logically or scientifically incorrect. |
|
|
|
Well, I should probably be thanking you for focusing on me rather than how science proves God exits. But what else can you do? since you can't refute the science. So, thanks for helping to validate the science by showing folks how you can't refute it. What else can I do? I can try to keep your wandering mind on topic. What proof is there that Atheists hate Religion? That is part of the point. Many atheists don't hate religion. These are the ones who barely consider their atheism. So you don't think that atheists in general hate religious people in general? Finally, something we can agree on. I might not agree with your method of discussion, but I agree with the characterisation you give here - most atheists I've met don't even think about gods. The atheists who hate religion are far more atheistic than the ones who barely consider atheism. Both of them have their religion.
I don't agree with your definition of religion (ie that having a religion just means spending time arguing about something -- which means, by the way, that for example that all lawyers follow law as a religion, all politicians have political action as a religion) but even by your definition if many atheists "barely consider their atheism" then how can it be a religion to them? Those of them who hate religion, are far more into the religion of atheism than those who don't. They are also far more into hating themselves.
I'm not sure how you could know that -- unless you have been an atheist? "Leave me alone," they say. "Let me squander the little bit of life I have, before I wind up destroying myself completely, just to get away from the religion that I am."
Has anyone actually said that? I'm fairly certain that you just made that up, and that no atheist ever said that to you. Well, thank you again, for helping to prove that God exists, by attempting to take the focus off the science that proves it. Hopefully more and more people will wake up to the fact that God does exist. God even appreciates you for the help you are giving in this area. Any chance you'll respond to any of my questions any time soon? Do you have no answer for logical objections? |
|
|
|
You asked if I would start a war against religion because you mentioned faith. I wrote I have no problem with faith, only with your characterisation of science. Now you write "Of course you have a problem: you have no Faith!". This is meaningless, unless you think that science == faith, which as I explained to you before is a contradiction in terms.
Now it is you who is talking without thinking. Science DOES equal faith in all sorts of ways. What scientist would look for some aspect of science if he didn't have faith that it could be found? Who would ever formulate scientific theories if he didn't have faith that they might be able to be proven? or if he didn't have faith that his theories would help him prove other things in science? or if he didn't have faith that his peer review would earn him status or money somehow? Most of science absolutely does equal faith. No. I've never met a scientist arrogant enough to *have faith* they're right. There will be undoubtedly be some, but the ones i know *hope* they're right. If they had faith they were right, they wouldn't bother with experiments since that would be a waste of time. Replace "faith" with "hope" in your statement above and you'll be nearer the mark. Faith is when your mind doesn't know but your heart tells you so. Scientists don't hink with their heart but with their brain. So they can't have faith. That would be a nonsense. Of course they sometimes have faith in their theories and that's why they do test it. But they just have faith in their vision of the world, then they test, and they know if they're wrong or right. But we don't have faith in gravity BADecker xD Scientists are not robots. They have lots of faith. Ask their husbands and wives. Many of them will tell you truthfully that their spouse is faithful - full of faith. Scientists who investigate human relations don't have faith that a given husband will be faithful to a given wife. Having faith that your *own* wife is faithful is outside of science. Faith in gravity is built-in. It is beyond hope. Why do we have faith in gravity? Because we don't really know for a fact that it will keep on working for us. The example and experience is that it has in the past. But we still don't know about the future, even though we are comfortable in thinking we do. Bullshit. Investigations into the nature of gravity are still on going. If scientists had faith that they knew all about gravity, they wouldn't bother investigating it. |
|
|
|
I've made no ad hominem attacks, subtle or otherwise. I've called you names, sure ( egotistical, callous, unfeeling, incompetent, illogical, easily upset, childish, are just a few that I've either used or consider using) but I haven't done so in the hopes of using that to win an argument. You do.
Thank you, again, for more confirmation of the scientifically proven fact that God exists. I've made no proof that god exists. You're lying -- unless you'd like to quote the section where I did that? Rather than focus on disproving it, you focus on me, and maybe yourself. Why do you do this? Simply because you don't have any real evidence that the science I have expressed DOESN'T prove that God exists. Thanks again. I don't just "focus on you". I also respond to BitNow, and anyone who posts unsupportable and made up "facts". Why do you do this? Simply because you don't have any real evidence that the science I have expressed DOESN'T prove that God exists. Thanks again. I don't need or even want to prove god doesn't exist. Who knows, a universe creating god that meddles in human affairs might really exist, and it would be *very* interesting times if that was the case! No, I just need to show that a given "proof" that god does exist is in some way logically or scientifically incorrect. |
|
|
|
Well, I should probably be thanking you for focusing on me rather than how science proves God exits. But what else can you do? since you can't refute the science. So, thanks for helping to validate the science by showing folks how you can't refute it. What else can I do? I can try to keep your wandering mind on topic. What proof is there that Atheists hate Religion? That is part of the point. Many atheists don't hate religion. These are the ones who barely consider their atheism. So you don't think that atheists in general hate religious people in general? Finally, something we can agree on. I might not agree with your method of discussion, but I agree with the characterisation you give here - most atheists I've met don't even think about gods. The atheists who hate religion are far more atheistic than the ones who barely consider atheism. Both of them have their religion.
I don't agree with your definition of religion (ie that having a religion just means spending time arguing about something -- which means, by the way, that for example that all lawyers follow law as a religion, all politicians have political action as a religion) but even by your definition if many atheists "barely consider their atheism" then how can it be a religion to them? Those of them who hate religion, are far more into the religion of atheism than those who don't. They are also far more into hating themselves.
I'm not sure how you could know that -- unless you have been an atheist? "Leave me alone," they say. "Let me squander the little bit of life I have, before I wind up destroying myself completely, just to get away from the religion that I am."
Has anyone actually said that? I'm fairly certain that you just made that up, and that no atheist ever said that to you. |
|
|
|
You asked if I would start a war against religion because you mentioned faith. I wrote I have no problem with faith, only with your characterisation of science. Now you write "Of course you have a problem: you have no Faith!". This is meaningless, unless you think that science == faith, which as I explained to you before is a contradiction in terms.
Now it is you who is talking without thinking. Science DOES equal faith in all sorts of ways. What scientist would look for some aspect of science if he didn't have faith that it could be found? Who would ever formulate scientific theories if he didn't have faith that they might be able to be proven? or if he didn't have faith that his theories would help him prove other things in science? or if he didn't have faith that his peer review would earn him status or money somehow? Most of science absolutely does equal faith. No. I've never met a scientist arrogant enough to *have faith* they're right. There will be undoubtedly be some, but the ones i know *hope* they're right. If they had faith they were right, they wouldn't bother with experiments since that would be a waste of time. Replace "faith" with "hope" in your statement above and you'll be nearer the mark. |
|
|
|
You know, maybe you're an atheist, but you're truly devoted to your fight against religion, no doubt about that. Cause spending so much energy on a debate with someone obviously disagreeing fundamentally with you is close to faith you know?
What I care about is wooly thinking and people who try to deceive others by presenting logical fallacies as a real argument. Whether that's by someone who is religious or atheist or a sheep shagger, I care not. If spending energy on a discussion is a religion, then logic is my religion and my God is maths, and people who make illogical or purposely misleading arguments are sinners who offend my religious sensibilities. Lol. I didn't want to talk about religion but more about the fact that you truly have faith in your opponents to maybe one day change their opinion. Which they won't obviously. I continue the discussion for readers who might be mislead by people who have an agenda. I have no hope whatsoever of changing BADecker mind, or whatever BitNow uses to do his thinking, but I do hope that I can reveal their arguments to be the unsupportable opinions they are. Oh, this is so rare.  Not really rare, no. "I continue the discussion for readers who might be mislead by people who have an agenda." Translation. "I continue the discussion for readers who might be mislead by myself and my agenda."
I've made my agenda clear. I'm not pro anything other than truth and logic, and I'll always own up to it. I have made no misleading posts. "I have no hope whatsoever of changing BADecker mind, or whatever BitNow uses to do his thinking..." Translation. "Badecker and BitNow are two people I won't be able to mislead by my agenda."
No, you're two people who have such ossified thinking that I won't be able to change your mind. "...but I do hope that I can reveal their arguments to be the unsupportable opinions they are." Translation. "But I hope that I can change the focus of other people by calling their facts opinions."
Again, no. Your statements are unsupported, and many unsupportable. They are opinions until you can prove them to be otherwise. But I don't think they're are any logical fallacies in BADecker words. It's just that there is no logic at all that's all. Everything is fine until you corner him somewhere and he just ignores parts of your arguments that he can't deal with  When he is trying to argue, the arguments regularly contain excluded middles, ad-hominem attacks and strawman arguments. Logic goes out the window only when that is pointed out to him. Well, thank you again for showing us that the only thing you express about science proving the existence of God, is ad-hominem attacks in subtle form. Subtle ad hominem attacks? If they're subtle, they can't be very attacky, can they? Seriously though, if you take the piss -- which you regularly do -- I may respond in kind, if I can be bothered. But that's not an "ad hominem attack" -- I'm not trying to prove a point or make an agument if I call you a callous dolt. OTOH your posts recently always do make ad hominem attacks, and not very subtly either. If you really believed that science didn't prove the existence of God in the ways that I have said, you would have provided some kind of scientific explanation or evidence backing beliefs up.
I have tried to have that discussion with you, but every time I ask you to prove an assertion you fail to do so, and get all cranky and eventually just call your assertion a fact. Rather, you continually focus on me, and attempt to turn the science I use into, simply, my opinions.
I'm not focussing on you and it's egotistical to think so. You post here a lot. I'm responding to your posts. If you want to start another discussion about the proof of god, go ahead. Thank you for helping to confirm the science I express, by showing over and over again that you are unable to refute it. And thank you for making the confirmation even stronger,
You don't express science, and you have made no arguments. You just make statements and fail to prove them. That's not an argument, it's lecturing. If you can handle someone questioning your ideas, don't post. by using subtle ad-hominem attacks on me, thereby proving that you have no other capability.
I've made no ad hominem attacks, subtle or otherwise. I've called you names, sure ( egotistical, callous, unfeeling, incompetent, illogical, easily upset, childish, are just a few that I've either used or consider using) but I haven't done so in the hopes of using that to win an argument. You do. |
|
|
|
Au contraire mon frere. You wanted to get back on to the thread's topic. I asked for proof that that as a class atheists hate all religions, since that what the thread title asks. If we're not getting anywhere its only because you *dont* want to get the thread back on topic.
There you go again, with your standard old deception. Deception? You were the one to want to get back on topic: Actually, it is your challenge that changes the subject. The on-topic part that I was doing was to show why atheists hate religion. You and your challenges without doing your research, shows how you would rather change the subject so that we move away from the proof that God exists, and away from showing atheists why they hate religion... which is... because religion is right, and not even atheists like being proven wrong. The topic is: Why do Atheists hate Religion? I asked: What proof is there that this is true? What is deceptive? Pots and kettles, buddy. Well, I should probably be thanking you for focusing on me rather than how science proves God exits. But what else can you do? since you can't refute the science. So, thanks for helping to validate the science by showing folks how you can't refute it. What else can I do? I can try to keep your wandering mind on topic. What proof is there that Atheists hate Religion? |
|
|
|
You asked if I would start a war against religion because you mentioned faith. I wrote I have no problem with faith, only with your characterisation of science. Now you write "Of course you have a problem: you have no Faith!". This is meaningless, unless you think that science == faith, which as I explained to you before is a contradiction in terms.
Now it is you who is talking without thinking. Science DOES equal faith in all sorts of ways. What scientist would look for some aspect of science if he didn't have faith that it could be found? Of course the scientist doesn't have faith an answer can be found, she has hopes and expectations. If she had faith, she wouldn't bother looking. Who would ever formulate scientific theories if he didn't have faith that they might be able to be proven?
Every scientist I've ever met. or if he didn't have faith that his theories would help him prove other things in science? or if he didn't have faith that his peer review would earn him status or money somehow? Most of science absolutely does equal faith. Again, no. Maybe some scientists have faith they will find what they're looking for, but I've never met them. They all hope to make discoveries, but none of them are arrogant enough to have faith that they'll be the ones to do it. |
|
|
|
You asked if I would start a war against religion because you mentioned faith. I wrote I have no problem with faith, only with your characterisation of science. Now you write "Of course you have a problem: you have no Faith!". This is meaningless, unless you think that science == faith, which as I explained to you before is a contradiction in terms.
You are not following my line: why? That makes no sense. I'd ask you to explain, but I know you'll just use it as an opportunity to ask about men and what they are again.
You are clearly not a scientist. That is definitely *not* how the scientific method works.
I never talked about scentific method. You talked about science and the scientific method is part of that, which you would know if you understood even a little bit about science. Have you ever even met a scientist? You know, last time I fell for that "For any doubt or information feel free to ask." line, you totally took the piss. You didn't explain anything, you just went on with your weird "Be a man!" quote, which to you seems to mean "Don't ask questions!".
After the way you responded last time I asked you for information, why on earth did you even bother to post that? Did you really think I would again fall for your concern trolling?
Go on. tell me to "Be a man!". Get it out of your system. I know you want to.
That is not trolling: that it search for Wisdom. You do not search for wisdom. Your responses just consist of "Be a man!" and "Faith is science" or vice versa. That's not a search for any kind of wisdom or truth. It's not even a search at all. You search for nothing except people that agree with you. Quoting myself:
Instead arguing: starts to have Faith and you will find Wisdom and hence Science.
Best regards. Quoting myself (in 01/2016) I don't even pretend to understand that last comment, but all I'm doing is attempting to have a debate with you. All you're doing is avoiding making sense. I have to wonder why? Are you a secret atheist trying to make religious people look disingenuous?
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
