No you may not hide behind pretended innocence. Your thread title stands for all to read.
Posts by Qcmbr
-
553Why are atheists so intent on scorning "believers"?
by Chariklo inuntil recently, i had never encountered this word "believers" used as it is being used on this board, to describe pejoratively a group of people.
it's not clear to me whether they scorn all who have a faith of some sort.
do they include buddhists, hindus, followers of the baha'i faith, followers of the cargo cult, native americans along with christians, or is it just christians who are honoured with this epithet?.
-
-
-
553
Why are atheists so intent on scorning "believers"?
by Chariklo inuntil recently, i had never encountered this word "believers" used as it is being used on this board, to describe pejoratively a group of people.
it's not clear to me whether they scorn all who have a faith of some sort.
do they include buddhists, hindus, followers of the baha'i faith, followers of the cargo cult, native americans along with christians, or is it just christians who are honoured with this epithet?.
-
-
Qcmbr
Reasonable is a two way street. Reasonable doesn't start threads that carry a barely concealed universal prejudice. Reasonable changes in the face of contrary and sustained information and does not stonewall nor does it whinge. Reasonable is rooted in reason not in superstition.
-
553
Why are atheists so intent on scorning "believers"?
by Chariklo inuntil recently, i had never encountered this word "believers" used as it is being used on this board, to describe pejoratively a group of people.
it's not clear to me whether they scorn all who have a faith of some sort.
do they include buddhists, hindus, followers of the baha'i faith, followers of the cargo cult, native americans along with christians, or is it just christians who are honoured with this epithet?.
-
-
Qcmbr
I get that some believers expect scorn as a fundamental part of their belief and revel in it when they find it and poke and prod when they don't get enough of it.
-
376
How is creationism DISPROVED?
by sabastious init is disproven.
but let's start another thread, because this one is being yanked off track again.
creationism/evolution always deserves its own thread.
-
-
Qcmbr
Sab - what would it mean to you to be wrong and do you know what would invalidate your theories?
The strength of your argument rests upon knowing what would disprove it.
-
376
How is creationism DISPROVED?
by sabastious init is disproven.
but let's start another thread, because this one is being yanked off track again.
creationism/evolution always deserves its own thread.
-
-
Qcmbr
Sab - you may wish to change explosion to expansion. Explosion is an incorrect term for the big bang.
-
376
How is creationism DISPROVED?
by sabastious init is disproven.
but let's start another thread, because this one is being yanked off track again.
creationism/evolution always deserves its own thread.
-
-
Qcmbr
Final thought - because the creationist god has no characteristics that are testable or discoverable (and if anyone claims that such a being does then they must explain what is discoverable and testable) whereas the observed universe is testable and discoverable. All other designed artefacts without exception are a reflection of the designer in some way.
Also you haven't addressed the tool issue. All design requires tools (even a physical body is a tool) , no design can occur merely through force of will.
-
553
Why are atheists so intent on scorning "believers"?
by Chariklo inuntil recently, i had never encountered this word "believers" used as it is being used on this board, to describe pejoratively a group of people.
it's not clear to me whether they scorn all who have a faith of some sort.
do they include buddhists, hindus, followers of the baha'i faith, followers of the cargo cult, native americans along with christians, or is it just christians who are honoured with this epithet?.
-
-
Qcmbr
To be fair NT Jesus was pretty scornful, a name caller, judgemental, violent and abusive when the mood took him.
-
553
Why are atheists so intent on scorning "believers"?
by Chariklo inuntil recently, i had never encountered this word "believers" used as it is being used on this board, to describe pejoratively a group of people.
it's not clear to me whether they scorn all who have a faith of some sort.
do they include buddhists, hindus, followers of the baha'i faith, followers of the cargo cult, native americans along with christians, or is it just christians who are honoured with this epithet?.
-
-
Qcmbr
Steady Char your hypocrisy is slipping through. There is delicious irony in seeing the OP be scornful of atheists.
-
376
How is creationism DISPROVED?
by sabastious init is disproven.
but let's start another thread, because this one is being yanked off track again.
creationism/evolution always deserves its own thread.
-
-
Qcmbr
I'll have a quick go:
- Creationism is a purely human concept.
- All definitions of creationism are limited by the culture that created them and carry that cultures motifs ( Middle East creationism references concepts such as the firmament, Tasmanian creationism has knee less humans with kangaroo tails and so on.)
- All the cultural stories are radically different ( creation as the result of war, creation due to a stomach ache, creation due to escaping an egg etc.)
- All references to the god(s) portray them as very limited and anthropomorphisised , they are angry, play tricks, use very primitive tools like swords and axes, they are easily tricked and often the human end result is an afterthought ( no helpmeet was found )or a mistake.
- All creation myths rely upon magic and a pre existing space in which they themselves reside. No element of any creation myth tries to explain how the events occurred but why. The creation myths are about motives not mechanics.
- Where creation myths mention specific testable elements those elements are physically impossible ( the order of creation in the Hebrew myth is a typical example .)
- The creation myths are universally supernatural but actually produce the natural. No natural laws are used to produce natural things. Instead body parts, lotus petals, tree trunks are all alchemically converted into humans and mountains etc.
- Creationism describes sudden change over immediate timescales. Nothing then planets, dust then human, baby born fully armed etc.
- Creationism is always aimed at describing the macro world. It has no concept of the microscopic.
- Creationism does not establish any laws of physics and maintains no predictive power. Nothing in any part of any creative story is required or determines that the world would look as it does. At any stage creationism can wipe the slate clean and start again. Nothing in any creation myth explains what will happen tomorrow.
What does science reveal about physics that is incompatible with an intelligent creator:
- Natural intelligence at the level beyond pure chemical reactions at the cellular level requires a brain. No intelligence has ever existed in the observed natural world absent a physical, mechanical form. Even creation myths frame the creative force in physical form prior to the creation event.
- The expansion of the universe is not predicted by creationism but it is by a singularity expansion event.
- Quantum physics, which deals with the very area creationism does not, predictes that particles can exist at a given location as long as they cease to exist to maintain an overall balancing zero sum energy equation. No intelligence is required to generate these virtual particles, they are an emergent property of the universe, in effect it is self causing. This quantum turbulence also allows for an uncaused quantum singularity that can be the start point for a universe - note this does not in and of itself mean this is how it occurred only that nothing in the physics precludes it.
- The complexity of the universe occurs through relatively simple physically laws occurring over vast periods of time using vast energy gradients and unclosed energy systems. Evolution is one such complex system that relies upon gradual change over vast timescales and with a steady energy gradient ( sun). No feature of the universe indicates design from chaos but everything indicates sorting from chaos, thus we still have entire galaxies colliding, vast clouds of gas igniting under the forces of gravity and lifeless planets, moons and proto planets swirling around as left by eons of collisions and simple gravitational laws gradually sorting the dust and atoms of supernovae.
- Each element observed in nature is formed by giant stars that have exploded. No intelligence is required to make stars explode just a certain size, timescale and amount of fused elements.
- No observed intelligence has ever been able to subvert or alter a law of physics. All laws of physics must be obeyed and no amount of intelligence suggests that those laws can be replaced by simple will.
- All observed ordered systems can be resorted and improved by intelligence. Unintelligent weathering and carbon sequestration can be improved by human intelligence such that concrete can be made and complex structures can be formed that could never form by chance ( no watch could ever simply form regardless of time or energy inputs as it requires an organisational force to be applied by the use of tools .) Nothing in the observed natural world requires the use of tools - the hallmarks of design.
- Evolution has been experimentally proven.
- With the exception of abiogenesis processes have been observed, measured and theorised to show how physical laws can account for everything observed.
- Physics has predictive power. That which occurred in the past according to a physical law resonates on through eternity propagating at the speed of light. A pebble dropped in a pool will affect the universe in an expanding causual ripple at the speed of light. Beyond that event horizon it can have no effect on the universe at all ever. No intelligent effect can propagate faster than the speed of light nor affect all things simultaneously. Causative effects are limited by the speed of light. The laws of physics can predict what is likely to happen tomorrow based upon probabilities and enough input data.
-
24
What is the essential difference between ridicule and reasoned debate?
by Terry inintellectual honesty requires that ideas get a fair hearing in discussion, debate and conversation.. can we agree on that?.
holding persons or ideas up to ridicule has a different effect, however.
it silences the fair hearing.
-
-
Qcmbr
This might be true of a formal debate but I see little relevance to an online forum. No single poster either by being reasonable or by ridiculing can hold up, suppress or drive forward a discussion. People will make up their mind, maybe share and move on regardless of any other poster. In fact I've been motivated to post and join in a debate I was otherwise not drawn to due to certain posters views being inflammatory or plain dumb.
I think that , in an online forum, weak ideas crave uncritical acceptance and back pats. Great comments and keenly argued ideas stand up by themselves and don't require a kumbya chorus.
Imo.
