Darwin, Another flatulent atheist god bites the dust!

Discussion in 'Religion & Philosophy' started by Kokomojojo, May 16, 2020.

  1. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    however it is constructively a g-d, a false g-d.
    they dont trot it out and worship it as a g-d, like the atheists do
     
  2. Ronald Hillman

    Ronald Hillman Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2020
    Messages:
    1,690
    Likes Received:
    1,581
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I expect its the Zio, atheist,commie,Jews forcing atheists to worship a Christian!
     
    Last edited: Jun 3, 2020
  3. Cosmo

    Cosmo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2015
    Messages:
    2,720
    Likes Received:
    1,803
    Trophy Points:
    113
    " Those who cavalierly reject the Theory of Evolution, as not adequately supported by facts, seem quite to forget that their own theory is supported by no facts at all."
    - Herbert Spencer-
     
  4. An Taibhse

    An Taibhse Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2016
    Messages:
    7,238
    Likes Received:
    4,819
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I see, so by extrapolation you see science as a constructive God worshipped by those that engage in acquiring understanding using the scientific method, eh?
     
    Cosmo and Ronald Hillman like this.
  5. An Taibhse

    An Taibhse Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2016
    Messages:
    7,238
    Likes Received:
    4,819
    Trophy Points:
    113
    upload_2020-6-3_14-37-57.png
     

    Attached Files:

    Cosmo likes this.
  6. (original)late

    (original)late Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2015
    Messages:
    8,372
    Likes Received:
    4,001
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I should tell you, that I am in an awkward position.

    As a minor god of information, my status as an atheist is dubious.

    But, as a god of information, I can tell you there are a lot of gods; but there aren't any good ones. Which is a shame, it would be a lot of fun to throw a thunderbolt, or start a badass earthquake.

    Nope, all I have on offer is to give the obvious to the oblivious.
     
    Cosmo likes this.
  7. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So you are shallow captain obvious trying to sucker the oblivious, is there good money in it?

    So gods are supposed to throw thunderbolts huh? ....and a ewll placed nuke will drop california in the drink dont need no god for that.
     
  8. Cosmo

    Cosmo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2015
    Messages:
    2,720
    Likes Received:
    1,803
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What's your explanation?
     
    Last edited: Jun 3, 2020
  9. (original)late

    (original)late Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2015
    Messages:
    8,372
    Likes Received:
    4,001
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It's called wit.

    Would have been fun if someone got it.
     
    Ronald Hillman and Cosmo like this.
  10. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, I see worshiping science as worshipping a god.

    The characteristics nearly parallel the worship of the money god.

    Money worship
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Money worship is a type of money disorder. The core driver of this behaviour is the belief that having more money will lead to greater happiness.[1] Individuals with this disorder are obsessed with the idea that obtaining more money is necessary to make progress in life[2] and, at the same time, convinced that they will never have enough money to fulfil their needs or desires.[3]


    rethinking history

    "History is a tangled skein that one may take up at any point, and break when one has unravelled enough." Henry Adams


    Sunday, March 15, 2009
    The Worship of Science


     
    Last edited: Jun 6, 2020
  11. An Taibhse

    An Taibhse Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2016
    Messages:
    7,238
    Likes Received:
    4,819
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Hmmm.... I have gathered that to a degree from your posting history, when you refer to a ‘constructive’ God. If by worshipping, you mean preferring the process of acquiring knowledge of how things work as preferring the practicality of scientific methodology over the faith in generations of men fabricating scripture that is supposed to represent the word of God, then, guilty as charged. I don’t worship a God, not because one or more might exist, but because I haven’t seen a compelling case for one...or more than one, and even less evidence for an personal intervention God that responds to prayer. If I found at some point one or more did seen to exist, that would be interesting, but I would still be highly skeptical.
    I don’t worship money... In fact, money doesn’t drive my interests at all as my Ex would tell you, my insatiable curiosity does, curiosity that is satisfied by applying the scientific method to understand. So, believe what you want...It’s ok and your right, but your beliefs hold no capital for me.
     
    Cosmo likes this.
  12. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Money was nothing more than an example since you did not seem to understand how one could possibly say science as someones 'god'.

    Science is also faith based, some is not. When its used and intended to be a strong counter argument to the existence of a G/god, as it is by ALL atheists I have ever engaged as their core or foundational worldview it is in fact their god.

    Had you taken the time to read the commentary I posted it woujld be more understandable for you. Here are some excepts:


    In fact if there has been a constant in the last thousand years of science, it has been the repeated enthusiasm by the majority of 'scientists' and scientific bodies to fight strenously against anything which challenges an accepted orthodoxy. They challenge assumptions, ridicule new theories, and usually attack proponents of new ideas. It often takes centuries for new concepts to establish dominance (by which time they are already out of date, but are being defended as the ‘new’ orthodoxy).

    This then is the state of modern physics. Our scientific understanding of how everything works is based on a theoretical existence of something which we can neither find nor measure. And this from people who claim that a God can’t be real because we cannot prove or measure Her! Perhaps someone should suggest to our so called scientists that they find a definition of scientific method in a basic primary school textbook.

    Another scientific assumption, is the theory of evolution. I say this not because I don’t accept that species evolve, they patently evolve (one could argue that humanity is evolving into illogical idiots as we speak). What is unproven is that man evolved fom an ape: though every few months we hear of yet another inconclusive excuse for a ‘missing link’ in the fractured inconsistencies of the archeological record. (The British Sci-Fi write Terry Pratchett posits that fossils are the result of a god with a sense of mischief, and writes a whole book around the premiss of the discovery of the skeleton of a dinosaur holding a placard demanding “end nuclear testing”.) The flaw with an argument like this is that it chases it’s own tail. In what way does evolution prove that God does not exist? In what way does our continued enrapture over an unproven dogma - evolution of the species – make our logic superior to religious ‘superstition’.
     
    Last edited: Jun 6, 2020
  13. Cosmo

    Cosmo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2015
    Messages:
    2,720
    Likes Received:
    1,803
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Science does not say that we evolved from apes.
    Millions of years ago humans shared a common ancestor with modern African apes. The species diverged into two separate lineages. One of these lineages ultimately evolved into gorillas and chimps,and the other evolved into early human ancestors called hominids.
     
  14. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Argumentum ad lapidem fallacy, feel free to stop by when you have some facts to post.
     
    Last edited: Jun 6, 2020
  15. Cosmo

    Cosmo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2015
    Messages:
    2,720
    Likes Received:
    1,803
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Feel free to stop by with your explanation of what led to the emergence of Homo sapiens.
     
    Last edited: Jun 6, 2020
  16. An Taibhse

    An Taibhse Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2016
    Messages:
    7,238
    Likes Received:
    4,819
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Given that the concept of a God or Gods represent something that exists beyond the natural world those applying the scientific method as the process for epistemological methodology for developing an understanding of the natural world, science, using the term as the body of knowledge and explanations accumulated by applying the scientific method, questions of the supernatural are not the domain of scientific inquiry primarily because no one has ever devised a means to adequately satisfy the requirements for using that method at any level of confidence that provides for replication of method that yields uniform results, is falsifiable, provides predictive explanation, and that can withstand any test using the scientific process and methodology for ascertaining the level of confidence required for practical understanding of how things work the way they do. Those that are involved in scientific inquiry do not worship something called science, but simply believe the scientific method currently provides the best means for accumulating understanding that provides ever increasing confidence in that understanding. Nothing, in the realm of scientific inquiry is sacred; all understanding can be challenged… by anyone employing the scientific method to do so.
    If there is anything called faith among those doing scientific inquiry, it is more akin to the what level of confidence is applied to any aspect of understanding, knowing any inquiry performed by anyone can either increase or decrease the level of confidence. Science often advances understanding because no bit of knowledge or understanding is exempt from challenge by any skeptic that can frame questions of validity by a test devised within the framework of how questions are tested by applying the scientific method. The epistemological framework of knowledge thus is continually improving in large part because it is continually being challenged, tested, refined, or replaced by asking new questions designed to improve the confidence in what we think we know.

    That an atheist might suggest that no God exists based on no evidence has been found and rigorously tested using the scientific method to show otherwise, is not making a statement consistent with the process used for scientific inquiry. The atheist, from the standpoint of scientific inquiry, stands on the same ground as anyone making the opposite claim. Science doesn’t support an atheist’s faith in the non existence of God. At best, it provides provides the potential, thus far, for skeptics challenging evidence of believers that one exists.

    The methodologies employed for scientific inquire have evolved over time and been refined by many searching for the means to not only better understand the universe in which we inhabit, but to apply that understanding into practical knowledge of how it works for improving human kind’s ability to exploit it to advantage. Do some in the scientific community develop and elevate certain aspects of scientific knowledge to orthodoxy of those resistant to challenge and change? Sure, engaging in scientific inquiry doesn’t exempt people from being people and being subject to protecting status, careers, and financial reward by vigorously defending their self interests against the very same questioning and methods that they used to achieve what they have. But, because of the nature of scientific inquiry, there are are always those that are in continual pursuit of improving understanding. And through the means of applying the methods of scientific inquiry, successful challenges not only occur all the time, but, through a process similar to natural selection, knowledge evolves.


    You’d have to be specific what you mean here. Modern physics engages in a broad range of inquiry, some with theoretical speculation and other through rigorous empirical experimentation. Some models of understanding like the Theory of Relativity continue, not as elements of faith, but exploitative models that continue to be validated on a continual basis. Some, like the Standard model of Particle Physics or the periodic table work so well that they have predicted things far before actual evidence/observation has confirmed those predications… the Higgs Boson being a famous example. Yet, any serious physicist would say, these models are unlikely to give a complete picture of reality; they represent the best models for understanding at the moment…. And there are many working to see beyond these knowledge frameworks, such as those searching for the Grand Unified Theory of Physics.
    In that search, there are those that have worked on and are proponents for theoretical theories such as those variations of String Theory, Loop Quantum Theory, Geometric Unity, etc.

    Geometric Unity: an interesting discussion
    [Video]

    In this and other threads you have expressed doubt of evolution. It is rather obvious to me you don’t understand neither the vast body of interdependent and independent corroborative science of the past 120 years of work across many science disciplines that have provided evidence for evolution (decent with modification as Darwin framed it), nor understand how natural selection works, nor have acknowledge the studies reporting actual observed evidence of evolution and speciation, nor understand the demonstrable inherent role of genetic diversity that underlies the process natural selection. Your disbelief stems primarily from your belief in God’s role in biological design which primes your confirmation bias approach when you suggest disbelief (that man evolved fom an ape) and suggestions about those claiming to find ‘the missing Link’. Both of these suppositions are based on the rehashed popular criticisms of Darwin’s work in the late 1800’s and how MSM media interprets studies or evidence that is product of continuing scientific inquiry. No serious scientist has ever suggested man. evolved from ape, but the overwhelming evidence is (such as fossil finds, anatomy, and genetic analysis) is consistent with a common ancestry. As for a ‘missing link’ no serious scientist, (since the Piltdown Hoax of the late 100’s) would suggest fossil evidence shows such a link. What it does show are the variations in time and place consistent, thus far, of candidates of fossils remains of ancestors of modern humans and the geographic distribution of those fossils consistent with the gradual geographic dispersion of the ancestral species over time. It is unlikely any so called ‘missing link’ will be found; that would be inconsistent both with how natural selection works to change the genetic expression of a specie’s population, and the rarity of the survival individuals of a population as fossil remains over time. When I hear such criticisms it feeds my speculation that you focus not on the overwhelming number of studies demonstrating evolution as a robust model of understanding but choose to read that which feeds a conclusion you already support… but then, what would change your mind?
    If one wants to suggest everything is the product of intelligent design in the face of the overwhelming evidence being consistent with evolution, then Terry Pratchett’s SCI-Fi narrative, based on that idea, is how a God would have done intelligent design of what we see in today and also planted the deceiving evidence of evolution. It’s a test of faith, don’t you know. You are passing, I am not.

    One additional thing, Darwin didn’t originate the term evolution, nor did was he the only one that first described the process of natural selection. British biologist Alfred Russel Wallace, a contemporary of Darwin with whom Darwin communicated his ideas, independently conceived of a natural, even observable, way for life to change: the process Darwin called natural selection. Also, Darwin, would have described him self likely a theist, and because his wife he thought, who he adored, was extremely religious and he was deeply concerned his ideas might hurt her, he struggled with publishing his work, but Wallace and others convinced him to publish.v

    Just as an aside, you are walking down the street and meet a fellow who says, ‘Hi, I am God. I just came down in human form, to check how things are going. How do you think it’s going?’ So, how would you know if it was God? Would you ‘test’ him….test God? What test would prove it one way or the other? I would claim, it impossible to develop a definitive test.
     
    Cosmo and Ronald Hillman like this.
  17. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    150,185
    Likes Received:
    62,819
    Trophy Points:
    113
    why are you treating the word "God" like a swear word? it's not blocked here
     
  18. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    citation? :roll:
     
  19. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    150,185
    Likes Received:
    62,819
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I just put it without the "-", wasn't blocked, so that right there proves it
     
    Last edited: Jun 7, 2020
    Cosmo likes this.
  20. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Many do! Any scientific belief by any other definition that is not proven by scientific method, especially those used to support a worldview is a religious element.
    How is that different from theists?
    Agreed, fails scientific method.
    Agreed again.
    Theology does not fill that role?
    I have to laugh, Nikola Tesla called it a metaphysics.
    People are foolish enough to believe that space can actually of all things warp, but cannot desctibe the composition of space that warps, totally hilarious.
    To me its totally obvious that you do not understand it only takes one piece of evidence that no longer fits the puzzle and the whole house of cards tumbles into a pile of rubble.
    Im agnositic
    Who do you think are discovering contrarian evidence if not serious scientists?
    The fossil records show evolutionary disconnects.
    ad populum fallacy, as I explained the whole house of cards fail with one lousy contrarian example.
    Zero contrarian evidence but its too late for that.
    I dont claim to have a theory, just reviewing the facts of the exiting evolution theory.
    Thumbs up on that one
     
    Last edited: Jun 7, 2020
  21. Cosmo

    Cosmo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2015
    Messages:
    2,720
    Likes Received:
    1,803
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Anti-science drivel.
     
    Last edited: Jun 7, 2020
    An Taibhse likes this.
  22. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    150,185
    Likes Received:
    62,819
    Trophy Points:
    113
    which means you do not believe in a God, which means you are also Atheist, but say you are open to believing in a God if ever someone can prove to you one exists

    and all that assumes your not bearing false witness to your beliefs
     
  23. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    anticriticism foaming at the mouth
    false, I suggest you look up what it means
     
  24. Goomba

    Goomba Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2011
    Messages:
    10,717
    Likes Received:
    161
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Science has been hijacked by absolute materialists. It’s about time they become replaced by a more evolved group....
     
  25. Market Junkie

    Market Junkie Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2016
    Messages:
    2,390
    Likes Received:
    1,920
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Chuck's work seems to be aging quite well … unlike all the hot air that has emanated from misguided theists over the years...
     
    Ronald Hillman and Cosmo like this.

Share This Page