Who here is an atheist?

[Meriweather]

Generally you are right. However reasonable most atheists might be, when they are called Nazis, like has happened in this thread, tend to be a little less gentle in their answers.

Correct. Name calling is shameful for both sides and should be self-edited before "Post Reply" is hit. Admittedly more difficult if was not self-edited, it helps the dialogue when the reader ignores personal remarks and centers on the discussion topic.

My personal pet, Peeve, however, becomes most snarly when people on either/both sides state, "You believe (or don't believe) because...." Everyone is terrible at reading minds and have little clue as to why another Internet poster believes or does not believe.

 

[Meriweather]

That is what you are doing and which I'm trying to point out. You assert documentary records are evidence of YHWH but deny documentary records are evidence of Zeus.

Keep in mind many of us are interested in how others view God, no matter what they called the Supreme Being. That can be compared to our own experiences of God/Supreme Being.

 

[ding]

Sure, but I'm not here to argue Abiogenesis.

No. You are here due to the Laws of Nature which are designed to create beings that know and create. Which as yet, no one knows how life made the leap from non-living matter.

The proteins didn't sequence themselves. That would have been impossible.

 

[ding]

How have I treated you? Did I use abusive language? Did I use ad-hominems? Did I call you or anyone else a dick?

uh huh

So then you don't look down on believers?

I never claimed to be a saint. Spolier alert: I am a sinner.

 

[ding]

Or indoctrinated since childhood I'm betting.

This would be an example of you looking down on believers and assuming that the only way anyone could come to God is through brainwashing.

False. Rejected. Want to try again?

 

[ding]

Sure, but I'm not here to argue Abiogenesis.

The problem you have is that you limit evolution to such a narrow event.

Matter has been evolving since the creation of space and time.

No wonder you can't understand what I am talking about.

Evolution is when anything moves from a less advanced state to a more advanced state. Everything is evolving. All per the rules of nature. All towards an end goal. The evolution of consciousness.

Do you even know what the different stages of the evolution of matter are?

 

[ding]

Not sure what mind-stuff is.

Consciousness, intelligence, etc.

 

[ding]

Sorry, you hit psychobabble territory here. I'm not understanding this.

Of course you don't.

Science tells us that the laws of nature existed before space and time and that the potential for beings that know and create (i.e. are conscious and intelligent) were pre-destined to exist per the laws of nature because life was built into the laws of nature.

 

[ding]

I tie Zeus to every other god.

Of course you do. It is another sign of how you disrespect believers. It's kind off your Trojan horse.

 

[ding]

What's so ironic about that? I don't condemn respect for atheists. I have three sisters who are atheists. We get along just fine.

Militant atheists? Different story. They get back what they earn.

So what is a "militant" atheist?

Active hostility toward religion.

The belief that religion "should not simply be tolerated but should be countered, criticized, ridiculed and exposed.

Condemning respect for people who believe in God.

But the religious have not been respecting non believers for a very long time. Atheists are just standing up to the backlash they have encountered over the centuries.

Bullshit. That's your perception because you disagree with them exercising their secular rights in opposition to your positions on social causes. No one is oppressing atheists.

In the past, atheists were indeed oppressed by the religious and the religious have oppressed other religious people.I never stated that I was being oppressed. I stated that that we are standing up for our non-belief. I don't want to stop you from going to church or practicing your religion. I just don't want any part of it. There are many theists who want to instate prayer back into public schools. Do you agree with that?

First of all when and who were oppressed? Do you have any specifics?

If you don't want any part of religion, then what are you doing here?

I see nothing wrong with students praying. I see everything wrong with students being forced to pray.

You said it yourself, you are standing up for NON-BELIEF. Which means you don't have arguments FOR your belief because it is a non-belief. You only have arguments against others having beliefs. That's what you are doing here. You are trying to validate your beliefs by criticizing the beliefs of others.

Do you know what that is called? Critical theory. The Cultural Marxist practice of critical theory is to criticize what they do not believe to arrive at what they do believe without ever having to examine what they believe. They confuse critical theory for critical thinking. Critical thinking is the practice of challenging what one does believe to test its validity. Something they never do.

 

[ding]

The values that religion promotes are successful values.

Smiting is profitable? Well, I suppose that's one measure of success.

If you are going to blame religion for the bad, don't you think you should credit religion for the good?

Or don't you want to see the complete picture?

 

[ding]

Don't be silly. No other even in antiquity had more manuscripts that were written closer to the event in time. It's not even close.

Yet until they were written, Zeus had more play than YHWH. Therefore according to your argumentum ad biblio Zeus existed at that time.

And has absolutely nothing to do with the question is there a Creator. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Zero.

All religions except Judaeo -Christianity are men seeking God. They do not claim otherwise. Judaeo -Christianity does.

You need to tie religion to mythology to confirm your bias.

 

[ding]

My point was you happily accept evidence when it suits your purpose and reject evidence when it doesn't

That is what you are doing and which I'm trying to point out. You assert documentary records are evidence of YHWH but deny documentary records are evidence of Zeus.

So is it your position that since those documents exist for Zeus, that Zeus was real and walked this planet?

Or is it that since Zeus isn't real, Jesus isn't real?

 

[ding]

Because there is no religion based on Zeus.

I thought that was self evident.

Your argument seems to be that if a religion does not exist the gods that inform that religion do not exist. Therefore according to that argument, when no one worshipped YHWH it did not exist.

My position is that there is only one Creator and your interpretation of my argument that if no one worships God then He doesn't exist is patently false.

This all goes back to revealed religions of which there has only been one. Man can gain insight into the attributes of God through the study of what He has created. So it is not unusual that they would all reach the conclusion that creation is good, evil is not extant and virtue naturally leads to success, order and harmony and a people devoid of virtue will naturally result in disorder, chaos and failure. Ironically enough we see both scenarios happening to pretty much every society that has ever existed but that too serves a purpose in progressing humanity (i.e. consciousness).

 

[LittleNipper]

So. Big Bang.

What caused the "Big Bang"?

Did the Big Bang bring existence into existence? Or did something exist before that?

If so, how?

So, what, because we don't know we're supposed to invent a sky fairy as the explanation?

How about intelligence as an explanation?

Why must we presume an explanation? Why can't we just say, "Gee. I don't know. lets study, and research, and find out!"? The "God of the Gaps" is the theists' last, ever-shrinking defence.

This isn't the Theist's doing. The blame is squarely on the shoulders of Atheists, politicians and the Supreme Court. It was once simply a matter of classroom discussion, debate and encouraged scientific investigations. However, a misguided decision (misunderstanding of Church and State) turned education on its ear and we have been reaping bad choices ever since among school boards, faculty, students and parents.

American Public school education today is a shell of what it once was. Do you remember SPIRIT WEEK and singing the school's ALMA-MATER? These are actually throwbacks and remnants of the many years of scholastic endeavors prior to secularist hijacking public education. When was the last time you saw pictures of Washington and Lincoln hanging in the homeroom? Did you know that an aspect of education was considered spirituality and that school teaching was considered a "CALLING" and not a career?

When was the last time there was a Halloween and Christmas Party held in elementary school with parent participation? Everything has been complicated today for the average school student, and none of this has made students more tolerant or respectful or better educated. In fact all we are nurturing are whiners and anti-social homebodies. Cannot present this, cannot say that, cannot do this , cannot do that, cannot give one child something unless you give all the children something. Maturity doesn't come with age ---- it is instilled through interaction and participation ----------------------- and not always only in things individuals enjoy doing. Whatever happened to dodge-ball and seesaws? Education cannot be sterile and be effective. You cannot expel spiritual thought without causing a chain reaction --- another proof of GOD.

 

[Czernobog]

See, this is why it is so easy to overcome Ding's arguments. Because all of them are founded in basic unprovable presumptions. Once you remove those presumptions, his arguments fall apart.

The leading cosmological model for how the universe began has been disproved by you?

I don't think so.

What you think is irrelevant. The Laws of Thermodynamics is very specific that they only apply to a closed system. There is no evidence that the universe is a closed system. In fact, because its expansion is assumed to be infinite, this would be evidence that it is not a closed system. As it interacts with whatever is outside of the universe, as it continues to expand, it is possible that it is an open system. We really don't know. Since your entire argument hinges on a presumption that, once again, you cannot prove, your argument lacks a logical foundation.

You do that a lot.

No. The laws of Thermodynamics do not only apply for a closed system.

First Law of Thermodynamics for an Open System ~ Learn Engineering

it's like you go searching for anything that might make your case. And you end up making stupid ass statements like this. It wouldn't be so bad if you didn't dismiss your defeats and ignore your incongruities.

Yes, there is absolutely evidence that the universe is a closed system. The best cosmological model for how the universe began is the inflation theory. It's predictions match our observations better than any other model.

So let me conclude by saying that thermal equilibrium for an infinite acting universe would still exist for a open system. As time approaches infinity the universe approaches thermal equilibrium.

The universe isn't going to get hotter.

I stand corrected. However, I notice you didn't find anything about the Second Law of Thermodynamics for open systems. This would be, because it specifically addresses closed systems: entropy can never decrease over time for an isolated (closed) system, that is, a system in which neither energy nor matter can enter nor leave.. So, unless you can demonstrate that the universe is a closed system, your argument still fails. And I don't really care what appeal to authority you use. Just because a person isn't an expert doesn't make their point invalid.

 

[Czernobog]

So. Big Bang.

What caused the "Big Bang"?

Did the Big Bang bring existence into existence? Or did something exist before that?

If so, how?

So, what, because we don't know we're supposed to invent a sky fairy as the explanation?

How about intelligence as an explanation?

Why must we presume an explanation? Why can't we just say, "Gee. I don't know. lets study, and research, and find out!"? The "God of the Gaps" is the theists' last, ever-shrinking defence.

This isn't the Theist's doing. The blame is squarely on the shoulders of Atheists, politicians and the Supreme Court. It was once simply a matter of classroom discussion, debate and encouraged scientific investigations. However, a misguided decision (misunderstanding of Church and State) turned education on its ear and we have been reaping bad choices ever since among school boards, faculty, students and parents.

American Public school education today is a shell of what it once was. Do you remember SPIRIT WEEK and singing the school's ALMA-MATER? These are actually throwbacks and remnants of the many years of scholastic endeavors prior to secularist hijacking public education. When was the last time you saw pictures of Washington and Lincoln hanging in the homeroom? Did you know that an aspect of education was considered spirituality and that school teaching was considered a "CALLING" and not a career?

When was the last time there was a Halloween and Christmas Party held in elementary school with parent participation? Everything has been complicated today for the average school student, and none of this has made students more tolerant or respectful or better educated. In fact all we are nurturing are whiners and anti-social homebodies. Cannot present this, cannot say that, cannot do this , cannot do that, cannot give one child something unless you give all the children something. Maturity doesn't come with age ---- it is instilled through interaction and participation ----------------------- and not always only in things individuals enjoy doing. Whatever happened to dodge-ball and seesaws? Education cannot be sterile and be effective. You cannot expel spiritual thought without causing a chain reaction --- another proof of GOD.

Lemme know when you feel like meandering back around to the topic at hand...

 

[LittleNipper]

See, this is why it is so easy to overcome Ding's arguments. Because all of them are founded in basic unprovable presumptions. Once you remove those presumptions, his arguments fall apart.

The leading cosmological model for how the universe began has been disproved by you?

I don't think so.

What you think is irrelevant. The Laws of Thermodynamics is very specific that they only apply to a closed system. There is no evidence that the universe is a closed system. In fact, because its expansion is assumed to be infinite, this would be evidence that it is not a closed system. As it interacts with whatever is outside of the universe, as it continues to expand, it is possible that it is an open system. We really don't know. Since your entire argument hinges on a presumption that, once again, you cannot prove, your argument lacks a logical foundation.

You do that a lot.

No. The laws of Thermodynamics do not only apply for a closed system.

First Law of Thermodynamics for an Open System ~ Learn Engineering

it's like you go searching for anything that might make your case. And you end up making stupid ass statements like this. It wouldn't be so bad if you didn't dismiss your defeats and ignore your incongruities.

Yes, there is absolutely evidence that the universe is a closed system. The best cosmological model for how the universe began is the inflation theory. It's predictions match our observations better than any other model.

So let me conclude by saying that thermal equilibrium for an infinite acting universe would still exist for a open system. As time approaches infinity the universe approaches thermal equilibrium.

The universe isn't going to get hotter.

I stand corrected. However, I notice you didn't find anything about the Second Law of Thermodynamics for open systems. This would be, because it specifically addresses closed systems: entropy can never decrease over time for an isolated (closed) system, that is, a system in which neither energy nor matter can enter nor leave.. So, unless you can demonstrate that the universe is a closed system, your argument still fails. And I don't really care what appeal to authority you use. Just because a person isn't an expert doesn't make their point invalid.

So, is the human body and open or closed system and why?

 

[Czernobog]

See, this is why it is so easy to overcome Ding's arguments. Because all of them are founded in basic unprovable presumptions. Once you remove those presumptions, his arguments fall apart.

The leading cosmological model for how the universe began has been disproved by you?

I don't think so.

What you think is irrelevant. The Laws of Thermodynamics is very specific that they only apply to a closed system. There is no evidence that the universe is a closed system. In fact, because its expansion is assumed to be infinite, this would be evidence that it is not a closed system. As it interacts with whatever is outside of the universe, as it continues to expand, it is possible that it is an open system. We really don't know. Since your entire argument hinges on a presumption that, once again, you cannot prove, your argument lacks a logical foundation.

You do that a lot.

No. The laws of Thermodynamics do not only apply for a closed system.

First Law of Thermodynamics for an Open System ~ Learn Engineering

it's like you go searching for anything that might make your case. And you end up making stupid ass statements like this. It wouldn't be so bad if you didn't dismiss your defeats and ignore your incongruities.

Yes, there is absolutely evidence that the universe is a closed system. The best cosmological model for how the universe began is the inflation theory. It's predictions match our observations better than any other model.

So let me conclude by saying that thermal equilibrium for an infinite acting universe would still exist for a open system. As time approaches infinity the universe approaches thermal equilibrium.

The universe isn't going to get hotter.

I stand corrected. However, I notice you didn't find anything about the Second Law of Thermodynamics for open systems. This would be, because it specifically addresses closed systems: entropy can never decrease over time for an isolated (closed) system, that is, a system in which neither energy nor matter can enter nor leave.. So, unless you can demonstrate that the universe is a closed system, your argument still fails. And I don't really care what appeal to authority you use. Just because a person isn't an expert doesn't make their point invalid.

So, is the human body and open or closed system and why?

It's an open system. Various inputs such as oxygen, food, and water are inputs whereas waste and carbon dioxide are outputs. Energy can also be transmitted in and out of the system, for example if one is throwing a ball, kinetic energy is passed from a human's hand to a ball, thus the exchange of energy.

 

[LittleNipper]

The leading cosmological model for how the universe began has been disproved by you?

I don't think so.

What you think is irrelevant. The Laws of Thermodynamics is very specific that they only apply to a closed system. There is no evidence that the universe is a closed system. In fact, because its expansion is assumed to be infinite, this would be evidence that it is not a closed system. As it interacts with whatever is outside of the universe, as it continues to expand, it is possible that it is an open system. We really don't know. Since your entire argument hinges on a presumption that, once again, you cannot prove, your argument lacks a logical foundation.

You do that a lot.

No. The laws of Thermodynamics do not only apply for a closed system.

First Law of Thermodynamics for an Open System ~ Learn Engineering

it's like you go searching for anything that might make your case. And you end up making stupid ass statements like this. It wouldn't be so bad if you didn't dismiss your defeats and ignore your incongruities.

Yes, there is absolutely evidence that the universe is a closed system. The best cosmological model for how the universe began is the inflation theory. It's predictions match our observations better than any other model.

So let me conclude by saying that thermal equilibrium for an infinite acting universe would still exist for a open system. As time approaches infinity the universe approaches thermal equilibrium.

The universe isn't going to get hotter.

I stand corrected. However, I notice you didn't find anything about the Second Law of Thermodynamics for open systems. This would be, because it specifically addresses closed systems: entropy can never decrease over time for an isolated (closed) system, that is, a system in which neither energy nor matter can enter nor leave.. So, unless you can demonstrate that the universe is a closed system, your argument still fails. And I don't really care what appeal to authority you use. Just because a person isn't an expert doesn't make their point invalid.

So, is the human body and open or closed system and why?

It's an open system. Various inputs such as oxygen, food, and water are inputs whereas waste and carbon dioxide are outputs. Energy can also be transmitted in and out of the system, for example if one is throwing a ball, kinetic energy is passed from a human's hand to a ball, thus the exchange of energy

The problem I see right off the bat is that the Universe is suppose to be everything material that exists everywhere.The Universe is all there is for the Atheist. That would make the entire Universe a closed system. However, if GOD exists then the Universe is not all there is and that would make the Universe an Open system. So either the law of thermodynamics is in effect or GOD is at work. You cannot have it both ways. Now, I believe the Law of Thermodynamic is GOD at work. I believe Gravity is GOD at work. So you lose both ways and I win both ways. It doesn't matter if the Universe is in fact open or closed --- God is at work. In your case if the Law of Thermodynamics is at work then you have a problem and if it isn't well, then there most certainly exists GOD as HE would be outside of the Universe.