[Closed] Why are you atheists so angry?

Presumably, that's YOUR idea of a peer review. I suppose someone might be moved to go off and collect a lot of quotes from atheist scientists to show you, yet again, that none of this is proof or evidence of anything but, well, you obviously refuse to recognise the obvious and actually, I simply can't be arsed.

EDIT (repeat).

someone might be moved to go off and collect a lot of quotes from atheist scientists to show you, yet again, that none of this is proof or evidence of anything

True. Although I don't really know what the peer review remark is referring to, having only scanned the last page or two of comments.

Quotes by Christian scientists doesn't "prove" God.
Neither do quotes from Atheist sicentists "disprove" God.

All it tells us is that some people conclude God exists, some don't.

And that God and Science aren't mutually exclusive.

Although I don't really know what the peer review remark is referring to

Oh, FFS.

What's the point of the post, then?

God and Science aren't mutually exclusive.

big bang
Dinosaurs
age of the universe
Origin of the species

WOuld you lkike me to go on ?

You cannot argue that advancements in science [ which means us understanding the world in an ever mor eaccurate way] have all lead to evidence thet counters biblical and religious accounts of how we came to be.

And from pages ago as i have just readf rom where i left off

So either 81% of us are utterly wasting our time and energy by having faith/belief in a god, or the other 19% are ignoring something very significant
Is it reasonable to suggest that 81% of people are wrong in believing there is something more to life than just muddling along for 80 years with no real purpose, and that death is the end?

Well all 81 % don’t follow the same one so we can still safely assume the majority of these are wrong and wasting their time – perhaps you may wish to ask why so many people believe so passionately and with equal faith when they are wrong – you may wish to consider why it is so hard to work out which are “wrong” given it is evidence based.

Quotes by Christian scientists doesn't "prove" God.
Neither do quotes from Atheist sicentists "disprove" God.

All it tells us is that some people conclude God exists, some don't.

"God doesn't exist" - some random on STW
"God exists" - some other random on STW

They also show that some people conclude God exists, some don't - you seem to have gone to a lot of effort for the same result.

Though hang on a minute...

"Atheism is so senseless..." (Sir Isaac Newton)

Newton also said that direction of light propagation doesn't get changed by a gravitational field - but observation shows it does. Why do you expect me to trust him on God when he got other stuff so wrong?

And that God and Science aren't mutually exclusive.

Quite a lot of claims by religious people and science are though.

Newton also said that direction of light propagation doesn't get changed by a gravitational field - but observation shows it does. Why do you expect me to trust him on God when he got other stuff so wrong?

True, he has since been proved wrong on at least one of his statements, such is the nature of science.

But as nobody's yet categorically disproved God by observation then the books still open on that one?

Science is a dynamic thing, with theories constantly being proposed, refuted and refined as human understanding grows ... the ultimate conclusion might be God ... who knows ... it wouldn't be scientific for science to just ignore or reject 'God' just because it doesn't agree with current understanding of stuff ... "we don't like the implications so we'll assume it doesn't exist" ...

But as nobody's yet categorically disproved God by observation then the books still open on that one?

Yeah. I see what you're saying.

nobody's yet categorically disproved God by observation then the books still open on that one

You cannot prove a negative which is why you are asked to prove god exists. The burden of proof is on you to support your assertion and you can produc eno objective evidence just faith and other stuff
If I make a claim can i just ask you to disprove it ?
It is not a good way to seek knowledge [ reduce error]

Newton also practicised alchemy FWIW - genius for sure but knowledge based on his time

Unicorns
Fairies
Trolls
Underpants Gnomes

You forgot the FSM

You cannot prove a negative which is why you are asked to prove god exists. The burden of proof is on you to support your assertion and you can produce no objective evidence just faith and other stuff

There's two sides of the arguement, so it's not just up to 'my' side to produce evidence for God's existence. It's equally up to the 'other' side to provide objective evidence to the contrary.

Either way, it's a nice discussion but ultimately nobody can be argued into a belief in God.

origin of the species

Evolution requires non-living matter to turn into a living organism and this has never been observed.

A Biology textbook puts it like this: "As we have seen, the life of every organism comes from its parents or parent. Does life ever spring from nonliving matter? We can find no evidence of this happening. So far as we can tell, life comes only from life. Biologists call this the principal of biogenesis."

So when it comes to real science (i.e. things we can actually establish by observation and experiment) life always comes from life.

Evolutionists insist life came from nonliving matter but they have no way of proving this.

There's two sides of the arguement, so it's not just up to 'my' side to produce evidence for God's existence. It's equally up to the 'other' side to provide objective evidence to the contrary.

Go on then. You believe in God, which presumably means you believe the FSM doesn't exist. You prove he doesn't.

Evolution requires non-living matter to turn into a living organism

Nope - it just required there to have been some very simple organism at the start which things evolved out of. The belief commonly held by evolutionists is that there was some spontaneous creation of very simple life, but the rest of evolution doesn't depend on this.

Plenty of evidence for evolution after the existence of a simple organism, plenty of evidence against creationism.

What's an FSM?

Anything like a Gruffalo?

It's equally up to the 'other' side to provide objective evidence to the contrary.

You are really controlled by an invisible and undectable green fish which lives in your ear

Now prove this is worng ?
Would you accpet this as true because you cannot or would you ignore it because I can produce no evidence to support this assertion

nobody can be argued into a belief in God

http://www.changinglivesonline.org/evolution.html

one wonders why you spend so much time trying to convince non believers by reposting stuff from here then.

As we have seen, the life of every organism comes from its parents or parent. Does life ever spring from nonliving matter? We can find no evidence of this happening. So far as we can tell, life comes only from life. Biologists call this the principal of biogenesis

What's an FSM?

Anything like a Gruffalo?

What's an FSM?

So that just about wraps it up for god, then...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/7745868/Scientist-Craig-Venter-creates-life-for-first-time-in-laboratory-sparking-debate-about-playing-god.html

So there wasn't a god, but there now is and his name is Craig?

That's a bit of an anticlimax.

one wonders why you spend so much time trying to convince non believers by reposting stuff from here then

Just posting some stuff that explains what I believe, by way of discussion, which is what interwebs forums are for (?)

I'm not expecting anyone to go "oh yeh, I was wrong, God it is then".

So that just about wraps it up for god, then...

mind out on the zebra crossings then.

I'm not expecting anyone to go "oh yeh, I was wrong, God it is then".

Mr Woppit - Member
So that just about wraps it up for god, then...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/7745868/Scientist-Craig-Venter-creates-life-for-first-time-in-laboratory-sparking-debate-about-playing-god.html

Can we get a comment from joao3v16 on this?

I'm not going to read all this thread, but I am going to comment that my kids spend more time learning about Christianity at school than they do about Science, and they/we have no choice in that.

I used to be (am?) a pretty hardcore atheist, however we will never be able to disprove the existence of a god so why bother? Maybe we are just a part of some meta-being's science experiment?

However the God of The Bible loooooooool, the guy (for he is a guy) is a nutter, he doesn't want worshiping he wants locking up.

I'm not going to read all this thread

Try the first post and the video there (listen in the background - you don't need to watch).

I am going to comment that my kids spend more time learning about Christianity at school than they do about Science, and they/we have no choice in that

kelvin - Member
I'm not going to read all this thread, but I am going to comment that my kids spend more time learning about Christianity at school than they do about Science, and they/we have no choice in that.

That's appalling. Does Michael Gove know about this? Isn't it against the law?

Are you not entitled to withdraw your child from religious indoctrination classes?

Thought of moving them to another school?

So there wasn't a god, but there now is and his name is Craig?

mind out on the zebra crossings then

edit

This has made him even more anti religous and now he thinks religious people are bullying morons and he hates the teacher.

No its actually tragic and bad ...what worse is it has created a little friction between me and his Mum over how best to deal with this - imagine that friction between us two 😉

if you could harness the heat fromn that friction you could end fuel poverty in the UK.

😆

So that just about wraps it up for god, then...

So, the scientists created something out of nothing, did they? No, they didn't, did they? They had to use something that already existed.

[i]The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.[/i]

[i][b]Ecclesiastes 1:9[/b][/i]

And as amazing as it does indeed appear, it's an incredibly basic 'lifeform' what they've 'created'. I've no doubt this can and will lead to more complex forms (and probbly cloned beings to provided food/labour etc)

It's hardly 'playing God' now is it, really?

Cos to do that, they'd have to create an entire universe with everything in it....

*peeps in*

Are we still arguing about this?

Coo. A 2000 thread!

BTW read up on Utts. Looks like her statistics were kosher but the experiment which handed her the figures to crunch had a few issues. So her work seems fine, the data is a bit suspect. Also a small sample size too.

For me to accept this would involve repetition of the experiment involving a couple of thousand subjects (minimum) and - more importantly - a double blind trial with more than just four pictures as a sample (say 10 or 50). If it shown then to be statistically significant then more experimentation and analysis.

That's the scientific way. Look at cold fusion for example. You don't just take one person's word for things, you repeat the experiment.

And avoid 'woo'. 😆

Hi Elf, here's another quote:

[b]AdamW, 1-2:23[/b]

Pints are quite nice, mince pies at certain times of year too.

This is a great game. Can we all play it?

Now I'm sodding off again. Things to do. Woo to avoid! 😀

Don't like mince pies. As I was bitterly disappointed as a small child, to find they din't in fact contain mincemeat, but some nasty squashed fruit mess. 😥

I blame Santa....

there is no new thing under the sun.
Ecclesiastes 1:9
(Sent from his iPhone)

😀

Mr Woppit - Member
So that just about wraps it up for god, then...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/7745868/Scientist-Craig-Venter-creates-life-for-first-time-in-laboratory-sparking-debate-about-playing-god.html

Can we get a comment from joao3v16 on this?

It appears they copied existing DNA from Mycoplasma Genitalium, then used a computer to artificially recreate the DNA.

So they didn't "create" life, they just made their own copy.

They didn't create their own raw materials first. Plagiarists. 🙂

...

One day a group of scientists got together and decided that man had come a long way and no longer needed God. So they picked one scientist to go and tell Him that they were done with Him.

The scientist walked up to God and said, "God, we've decided that we no longer need you. We're to the point that we can clone people and do many miraculous things, so why don't you just go on and get lost."

God listened very patiently and kindly to the man and after the scientist was done talking, God said, "Very well, how about this, let's say we have a man making contest." To which the scientist replied, "OK, great!"

But God added, "Now, we're going to do this just like I did back in the old days with Adam."

The scientist said, "Sure, no problem" and bent down and grabbed himself a handful of dirt.

God just looked at him and said, "No, no, no. You go get your own dirt!"

Don't like mince pies. As I was bitterly disappointed as a small child, to find they din't in fact contain mincemeat, but some nasty squashed fruit mess.

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

So they didn't "create" life, they just made their own copy.

"God" had a long, long time, and has lots and lots of worlds to experiment with to get those chemicals to randomly combine in the right way. I understand how tempting it is to think that something so complex as human life couldn't possibly develop without a bit of a helping hand - but there are an awful lot of planets on which it didn't. The fact we get to think about this means the survey is self-selecting.

Din't have Wiki when I was a small child.

In fact, din't have any internets at all.

We din't even have a telly!

but there are an awful lot of planets on which it didn't

Are there? And you know this how?

I just saw God buying an egg mayo sandwich at my Sainsburys local.

> but there are an awful lot of planets on which it didn't
Are there? And you know this how?

Didn't you say earlier that you believe the universe to be infinite Elf?
So doesn't it follow that there are an infinite number of planets?

Last time I looked, [i]"infinite"[/i] was very much a super-set of [i]"an awful lot of"[/i]. 😀

Ok, I interpreted this (badly worded statement):

I understand how tempting it is to think that something so complex as human life couldn't possibly develop without a bit of a helping hand - but there are an awful lot of planets on which it didn't.

As 'there's no life on other planets'. Even if it's 'there's no Human life on other planets', how is this 'known'?

It's not. We've never even set foot on any other planet. So we know nowt about them, or the life forms they may or may nor contain.

It's very possible there are lifeforms so complex it's beyond our puny Human comprehension.

It's also equally possible we truly are the only 'intelligent' species in the whole Universe.

All sorts of things are possible.

Like the existence of God....

As 'there's no life on other planets'. Even if it's 'there's no Human life on other planets', how is this 'known'?

It's not. We've never even set foot on any other planet. So we know nowt about them, or the life forms they may or may nor contain.

It appears to be broadly accepted that we know about several other planets on which life hasn't evolved, and only one on which it has. Hardly a huge leap then if we accept there are a lot of other planets, that there are a lot of other planets on which life hasn't evolved.

Also see the Fermi paradox.

All sorts of things are possible

i've changed my mind. there is a god. i feel i little silly now. he's tiny and spread out, like midi-chlorians, so science hasn't developed enough to see him yet. halleluja.

i still think organised religion is a load of cobblers though.

As 'there's no life on other planets'. Even if it's 'there's no Human life on other planets', how is this 'known'?

Because if the universe is infinite, as you stated, then there are an infinite number of planets without life on them.

And also an infinite number of planets with life on them 😀

It's also equally possible we truly are the only 'intelligent' species in the whole Universe.

In an infinite universe the chance of us being the only intelligent species is exactly zero. 🙂

Like the existence of God....

Or an infinite number of Gods. 😆

I've almost finished Brian Cox's "Quantum Universe". Its a mind warp but still makes a whole lot more sense than the bible.

[img] [/img]

http://dailymash.shotdeadinthehead.com/product_view.aspx?pid=2168

fI orget who it was but I loved the descriptions of him.

It is like listening to a stoned northener tell you about his favourite cake shop.

You see [hear] a different side of him on the Infinite Monkey Puzzle

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00snr0w

Junkyard - Member
All sorts of things are possible

you need to consider probabilities not possibilities.
Its possible elvis created the universe and he is there waiting for us all after death with Shiva, Ghandi and the dead one from the Bee Gees to give us 65 virgins and let us know the true asnwer to "what tyre" .
I would however say it is highly improbable.
Do we know everything - NO - do you wish to make more accurate approximations [ probabilities] or just make wildly inaacurate assumptions [ possibilities]

Junkyard - he knows this, but he just can't help himself. It comes in phases...

BTW read up on Utts. Looks like her statistics were kosher but the experiment which handed her the figures to crunch had a few issues. So her work seems fine, the data is a bit suspect. Also a small sample size too.

For me to accept this would involve repetition of the experiment involving a couple of thousand subjects (minimum) and - more importantly - a double blind trial with more than just four pictures as a sample (say 10 or 50). If it shown then to be statistically significant then more experimentation and analysis.

But the trials she did showed statistical significance. How do you propose caryying out a double blind trial in this context? Where do you get the criterion of 2000 subjects from? What's the theoretical basis for this? Furthermore, are you loking at the stargate or meta-analysis findings?

That's the scientific way... But the meta study was exactly about this.

Junkyard - he knows this, but he just can't help himself. It comes in phases...

Ooh, another snidey little personal dig. Classy, Woppit, classy...

Because if the universe is infinite, as you stated, then there are an infinite number of planets without life on them.

And also an infinite number of planets with life on them

🙂 I've now boggled me own mind trying to get me head round it all. It is truly overwhelmingly bewildering...

Is the Chrimbo Ride still on, Fred?

Not for you it's not.

Why's that, then? Don't you want a pint and a chat anymore? 😥

It's because he doesn't believe in Christmas.

No it's simply because I want to avoid any unpleasantness which might affect others on the ride. Cos I could, like, have one of my 'phases, you know? Best you stay away.

Oh well. See you at the next super-sexy, then. Ciao, baby.

the debate continues....excellent!

Issues of organised religion and the pursuit of man to gain power in the name of religion aside......it seems to me that the main issue as to why atheists are angry is what it would mean for them if God did exist.

Is the anger directed towards God therefore a response to the notion of sin? This idea that as humans we have missed the mark, that we have intentionally chosen to do wrong despite knowing what is right and as a result we are seperated from God - who is described as the very essence of good?

In response to the fire and brimstine debate.....what are folks thoughts on the idea that hell is not God's choice for man, rather man's choice to be seperate from God?

it seems to me that the main issue as to why atheists are angry is what it would mean for them if God did exist.

Really? Did you not listen to the video in the OP?

It seems that you don't need to watch the video to start questioning and casting doubt.

it seems to me that the main issue as to why atheists are angry is what it would mean for them if God did

I think that once you've set your stall out as vehemently as someone here have, the idea that you might, just might, possibly actually be wrong is something that needles away mercilessly in the backs of their minds, hence why they're so evangelical about their beliefs...

Certainly seems that the ones that 'need' to be [i]right[/i] more than others are in fact the atheists.

I'm an atheist and I am right

Well, there is actually the possibility that you might be wrong, you know?

NO I AM NOT WRONG I AM AN ATHESIST THERE IS NO GOD WE ARE NEVER WRONG!

*EXPLODE*

😆

All very entertaining, all all very wrong. The basic premise, that atheists are angry, is wrong. Atheists are not angry because there isn't much to be angry about; I think we have already covered most of the ground, probably ad nauseaum.

It is interesting to see the way people like Elfin argue about this; ascribe a negative emotion to others, then criticise it. It's hardly a sensible way to debate is it?

The positive things that this thread have brought out, the way religion works at a personal level, the way the contradictions inherent in religion are played out at a personal level have been interesting to see. The blustering and silliness from others, much less so.

All very entertaining, all all very wrong. The basic premise, that atheists are angry, is wrong. Atheists are not angry because there isn't much to be angry about; I think we have already covered most of the ground, probably ad nauseaum.

But that atheist, claiming to speak for atheists said that they were angry, so in the same way that christians or muslims or whatever are held responsible for the actions of others who identify themselves as such, you will need to account for her actions.

It is interesting to see the way people like Elfin argue about this; ascribe a negative emotion to others, then criticise it. It's hardly a sensible way to debate is it?

It's the way most of you 'fundamantalists' come across. That you can't see it is due to your own lack of self-awareness.

Sorry, but that's how it is.

I mean, look; you're getting angry now. As you did last night. Hence your poorly veiled attempt to rile me. Others have said pretty much what I have, yet it's me who you single out for 'attack'.

It's cos deep down, you love me really. 😀

X

Elfin - putting the fun in fundamentalist
Crikey - putting the dam in fundamentalist
aracer - putting the mentalist in fundamentalist

Excellent. Proof that Elfin is wrong and I'm right . Again. Thanks 😀

[i]I mean, look; you're getting angry now. As you did last night. Hence your poorly veiled attempt to rile me. Others have said pretty much what I have, yet it's me who you single out for 'attack'.[/i]

Of we go again with the schoolboy nonsense. I'm not interested in riling you, but I object to the way you treat this place as your own private fiefdom and break up threads with stupidity. No need for it; you are intelligent enough not to have to do it.

I'm not going to answer Charlie; he can sense what I'm thinking..

Charlie and Elf; putting the fundament into fundamentalist.

crikey - Member

Of we go again with the schoolboy nonsense. I'm not interested in riling you

No of course not ...... perish the thought.

This was you yesterday trying to wind up Elf on a thread titled "Feeling pretty down at the moment" in which the OP expressed how she was "struggling"

crikey - Member

Ego pwned...

crikey - Member

Really? I shall begin calling you 40 watt egosafety, cos you are not bright. Do tell how many logins you are up to now?

crikey - Member

Tell you what, why not use Sue_Ws thread to boost your on-line ego... Oh, you already have.

crikey - Member

p
w
n
e
d

You couldn't resist trying to start a slagging match with Elf, despite it being on a sensitive and serious thread. Shameful, to say the least.

Selective editing there ern, Elf started off on a how do you know about poverty thing and was stopped in his tracks. So yes he did get it.

No, Crikey, let's have this right, seeing as how you obviously want to make something out of nothing here:

I questioned Zedsdead's 'experience' of abject poverty, something I have in fact witnessed myself, as he/she was on an internet forum, which requires access to a computer with internet connection, which costs a hell of a lot more money than those in abject poverty have, if indeed they have anything at all. Such people in places like India where ZD works, are also often illiterate, and certainly would be incredibly unlikely to have a mastery of the English language necessary to converse on said forum. So, I thought that ZD was trying to make a point but being overly emotive about things, hence why I questioned them the way I did. It seemed extremely unlikely that someone actually 'experiencing*' such poverty would in fact be on the forum.

*I took 'experiencing' to mean someone actually 'suffering' poverty. Maybe our wires got crossed somewhere. I have a better understanding of where ZD's coming from now, anyway.

Ok so, I think there was a reasonable understanding between us in the end, and I understood the point ZD was trying to make, as did others, it seems. Ernie certainly understands where I'm coming from anyway.

So, quite a bit of understanding going on.

You, on the other hand, simply used it as an excuse to have a pop at me, which I thought was uncalled for and unfair. I attempted to bring a bit of humour into proceedings, but you seemed intent on 'winning'. So I din't bother any further.

Lately, you seem to have taken umbrage with me, which I think's a bit of a shame cos we seemed to get on ok on here previously.

Let's just draw a line here, and move on.

Excellent. Proof that Elfin is wrong and I'm right . Again. Thanks

As for you, Graham; I shall deal with you once I've calmed down from the outrage caused by your quite frankly [i]slanderous[/i] claim, which may actually even be racist I jolly well have not quite worked it out yet cos I'm too upset. 😐

'Elfin is wrong' indeed. [i]Elfin is wrong[/i]?? I BEG your pudden? What perversion of thought could possibly produce such a preposteration??? 😕

'Elfin is wrong' indeed. Elfin is wrong?? I BEG your pudden? What perversion of thought could possibly produce such a preposteration???

Not trying to be antagonistic, just trying to understand Human Behaviour is all.
So, why do you spend so much time trying to claim you're right?

Constantly. You can deny this, but you speshly Elf are someone who needs to be 'right' in arguments on here, much more than others.

😉

I thought of a really interesting and thought provoking post to add to this thread a couple of days ago whilst I was doing the washing-up.. I really think it would have revolutionised the way that [i]we all[/i] think about religion and belief systems..
flippin' [i]awesome[/i] post it was..

ho hum.. 😕

Constantly. You can deny this, but you speshly Elf are someone who needs to be 'right' in arguments on here, much more than others.

I don't think this is something Elfin does deliberately. We don't crticise him for always neeeding to be short or being braaaahn. He can't help the factthat he is always right, i think we just have to accept him like that.

Sounds a bit like the start of the hitch hikers guide
Edit: yunkis post that is

holy krakatoa! I missed this one. Is everyone cool! and if yer not then chill out and have a biscuit. I have biscuits.

Not trying to be antagonistic, just trying to understand Human Behaviour is all.
So, why do you spend so much time trying to claim you're right?

Constantly. You can deny this, but you speshly Elf are someone who needs to be 'right' in arguments on here, much more than others.

😆

I love you Graham. 🙂

I don't think this is something Elfin does deliberately. We don't crticise him for always neeeding to be short or being braaaahn. He can't help the factthat he is always right, i think we just have to accept him like that.

Again, 😆

Love you too Elf.

[img] ?w=460[/img]