Trolling a Forum

[selliedjoup]

Barney wrote

Once more, with staggering predictibility, I have to tell a Theist that the book is actually called Revelation. SINGULAR.

Thats the thing. We know far more about their farcical scribblings than they do. Sad really.

You know far more about everything according to you.

[redbeardjon]

well I know its sarcasm barney. I just assumed you were upset because of the aggressive nature of your response. Forgive me for adding an s to the book of Revelation. That is just like us Christians adding to and corrupting the Bible over the years. Shall I go pour ashes on my head?

[Barney]

Yes , why not. Because that I am sure would be symbolic of something.

It will probably make Yawh the tiny desert god aware that you are sorry. He might not even give you a free pass to his torture based invisible magical theme park run by one of his minions that, apparently, he couldnt control.

I say again.

It really is 2013. I could forgive someone sitting in a Desert tent two millennia ago for beleiving in funny storys that make kids scared and adults weep with hysterical laughter.

But you have access to something the world has never had before.
The Internet.
It contains a billion lies and sheer gibberish, but it also contains the collected knowlage of mankind. We know the biochemical reasons why we beleive in gods. we have fair theorys of everything from nothing. We have cast iron facts about how life came about.

Do you really REAALY need your magical snakes and your zombie carpenter?

How bad do you need him? Is he going to "Save" your "Soul"

There is an amazing volume of richness about our discovery of the reality we live in. It is at your fingertips right now. By typing into search engines and spending the time to learn. Through courses , through books , through time.

My collection of Ken Ham, Ray Comfort and Arquinus exceeds my works by Dawkins and Harris.

This is my last crack at communicating with the reamains of your intellect.
Think For Yourself

Now I know that will trigger you hugging Jesus and his magic flesh. I know it will be a scary thing, but aged 22 you are perhaps in your last days of being able to break the Drug. Otherwise chances are you are stuck for life. Or when you finally learn to think freely, your embarrassment may be too much to bear.

Heres my advice to you.

Read a book. A real book. Learn about christianity. Not from Dad who is pretty much gasping for the apocylpse. But from the actual real world around you.

Think on this.
The moon in the sky tonight. I am watching that too. It is what Lincon saw. King Edward 1, Beowulf, Issac, A shew in a tree 120000 years ago, it was here before life was around to see it. It was here as the earth bubbled with heat from a furnace you cannot comprehend for a span that would cause a heaommorage if you but understood it.

Is that not enough magic for you?

Do you really need a "donkey that speaks" in a silly madmans scrawls from an age where they literally cooked their food on shit?

[mondrian]

selliedjoup wrote

You know far more about everything according to you.

And you, jellied poo, know nothing about absolutely everything, as can be determined from your posts.

[mondrian]

redbeardjon wrote

well I know its sarcasm barney. I just assumed you were upset because of the aggressive nature of your response. Forgive me for adding an s to the book of Revelation. That is just like us Christians adding to and corrupting the Bible over the years. Shall I go pour ashes on my head?

You may have read a lot of posts on this forum, and I hope you have. There's some real cussing and swearing goes on, that's for sure. But don't assume that they are total idiots. There's a lot of intelligent people on here and, trust me, I know what I'm talking about. Let's put it this way, I have more than one degree. Take out all of the cussing and swearing and then read their posts. You'll see what I mean.

In all honesty, I can't better Barney's excellent post but maybe, just maybe, I can cause you to think about your beliefs using a completely different set of arguments.

The church has repeatedly said that 'most' scientists believe in god. Recent studies show otherwise. One poll showed that < 7% of US scientists believe in god. Here in the UK, that number is < 5%. I think that you would agree that this isn't 'most'. Don't take my word for it, go to the internet and find out for yourself. So, the vast majority of the best brains that our two countries have to offer do not believe in god. That ought to tell you something.

Since I was a child, I've been into science in a big way. I paid the price in that my knowledge of matters art is woeful. Even as a child, I could see that science and religion were incompatible. The church said otherwise. They insisted that the two could happily coexist. Well, a quick search of the internet, by you, will show that the church has either supported or been indifferent to science when it has either supported the teachings of the church or been of no threat. When it has been a threat, 'tis been a different matter. For example, read about Champollion and the deciphering of Egyptian hieroglyphs. There are numerous other well documented accounts on the internet of how science and religion have 'happily coexisted', or not as the case may be.

Why is the church afraid of science? Because science, one day, may disprove the existence of god. Well, here's a good question for you. If the church is so sure that god exists, why are they afraid that science may prove otherwise?

When I was a child, I thought that the day would eventually come when science would disprove the existence of god. I didn't think that it would be in my lifetime though. Now, I'm not so sure.

Back in the 70s, I was involved in some research at a UK university. In those days, we used a book called Chemical Abstracts which contained thousands of papers (in a condensed form) that had been published in reputable chemistry journals throughout the world. One such book was issue per year. The book contained standard A4 pages and was about 1 inch thick. By 2009, when the book ceased publication, one volume was produced every week. Such has been the rate of scientific progress. Progress in other fields of science has been just as rapid, if not more so.

Latest scientific experiments show that when a vessel is shielded from all manner of rays emanating from the cosmos and ALL matter is extracted, such that the vessel contains 'nothing', particles are spontaneously created within the vessel. It would appear that 'nothing' is an inherently unstable state. There is a video on YouTube about this. It is called 'A Universe From Nothing'. I suggest that you watch it. It appears that the universe was always going to spring into existence all by itself. It was never a question of how or if. The only question was 'when'. The creation of the universe was inevitable and that inevitability does not involve god. Science, yes.

Talk to young adults, if you can manage to persuade them to unplug their i-phones and disconnect from Twitter and Facebook, that is. Ask them if they believe in god. I did a straw poll of the young adults where I live. Most said 'Dunno'. I suspect that this is not untypical of young adults in the UK. The point is, god isn't even on their radar. It isn't a question that is even worthy of consideration to them. I suspect that this is a growing trend.

There was a time when religious leaders were respected. Given that, almost on a daily basis, a new story of how they, over the years, have abused young children, that respect is diminishing quickly.

Why religion and why god?

In my opinion, it mainly provided:

1. Religious leaders with the leverage to control the masses and accumulate great wealth.

2. A 'comfort blanket' to the psychologically weak.

3. A means by which man was able to face his own mortality.

4. An explanation as to how the universe came into being.

Religious leaders are treated with far less respect now than they used to be due to the recent revelations concerning their treatment of children. Their power base in fast diminishing.

We are now on the very edge of explaining how the universe came into being and god is no longer a factor.

Fewer and fewer young people even consider the existence of god, let alone believe in him.

Religion, particularly christianity, is dying. You may not accept this (yet). It may not be in its last death throes (yet). But, that day comes ever quicker. It may not come in my life-time, but, there's little doubt in my mind that it will come in yours. Man will then have little choice but to deal with his own mortality in his own way.

You may choose to reject this post. So be it. That will change nothing. What will be, will be.

Is what I say not even worthy of a little thought and a little research on the internet?

[ILOVEJESUS]

eloquently put Barney and Mondrian. I wager a bowl of strawberries it does little to alter the rabid obedience to the Jesus gang. Never the less, well put.

[mondrian]

ILOVEJESUS wrote

eloquently put Barney and Mondrian. I wager a bowl of strawberries it does little to alter the rabid obedience to the Jesus gang. Never the less, well put.

The day WILL come come when we'll see an end to all this religious malarkey. It can't come soon enough for me.

What will the believers do then when their comfort blankie is literally untimely ripped away from them?

Obviously, they are gonna look and feel pretty stupid for believing such obvious nonsense in the first place. So they should. Of course, the die-hards will utter the words 'conspiracy' and 'this is the work of the devil, don't listen to them, god exists' yada yada. But, eventually, even they will die out.

After that, what then?

I had occasion to talk to some high-ranking clergy bod a few years ago. Actually, he seemed to me that he was half-decent.

He said something to me that made me wonder:

"When a Man stops believing in God he doesn't then believe in nothing, he believes in anything." This is a quote often ascribed to G.K.Chesterton but more likely they are Cammaerts' words.

OK, so Red untimely rips his own comfort blankie out from under himself. Then what?

Maybe he'll spend the rest of his life looking for answers? Not a bad thing imho.

Maybe not.

Anyone noticed what I have about the latest edition of what we laughingly call society?

It doesn't want to 'work' for answers. It doesn't want to 'think' about questions and come up with answers. It just wants to Google the question and get the answer. Minimum effort involved. If Google says it's so, then that's good enough for them.

That's where the church used to be. It was the previous version of Google. No one wanted to think and ponder and all that good stuff. They just wanted answers and the church provided.

Maybe the second coming is already here.

Maybe it's Google?

[ILOVEJESUS]

As an online marketer I would say fuck Google. Different argument and point mind you. I get your point.

[redbeardjon]

Barney and Mondrian, thank you for taking the time to reply as you have done. It is apparent by your continued, comprehensive contribution that this topic is important to you. Truly, I feel as if your intentions are benevolent. Since you believe that religion is false and negatively affects society you have tried to save me from it. Certainly what you say is worthy of thought. That is why I have thought on it the past few days. That is why I watched Derren Brown’s Miracles for Sale. That is why I watched a presentation by Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss. That is why I watched four hours of debates between creationists and evolutionists.

You said “Think for yourself.” While I may not have studied as extensively as you Barney, have I not been through public school? Have I not studied physics? Did I not study the history of the world? Did I not study psychology? I have been exposed to many ideas and teachings. Moreover, most of my friends in school did not share my beliefs. My first year in Bible school was also the year I experienced the most doubt about God. Do not assume that I have not thought for myself as if atheists are the owners of free thought and greater knowledge. Each of us can gather teachers to ourselves that say what we want to hear. Each of us can point to different sources, but these people likely had already determined in their hearts whether or not God existed before the evidence was available. In short, the teachings are biased. Many people point to the difficulties in the Bible and many others give them explanations. They reject these explanations because they start off with the view that God is not a possibility. If you consider that God is a possibility, then I think you will find that the explanations are adequate. While you encourage others to think freely, do you examine yourselves?

The church is not afraid of science rather we embrace it. Here is an excerpt from a statement adopted by the Assemblies of God:

“Ultimately, then, when God’s Word and God’s Work are properly understood and taught
by reverent scholarship, there is no disunity. “For since the creation of the world God’s
invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being
understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse” (Romans 1:20).
God has revealed himself in such a way as to invite us into an exploration of His nature
through both the Word and His Work, the Bible and scientific exploration.”

You are right in saying that if the science contradicts the Bible then it is a different matter. I believe that if it contradicts the Bible then it is wrong; that is, I turn into a skeptic of that study. I agree with certain aspects of evolution. For evolution, more specifically speciation, (I do not agree with the whole of it) explains the varieties of creatures we have but does not have an answer for the origin of life. Richard Dawkins himself said that evolution is not an answer for the origin of life. I believe from one horse we can get zebras, donkeys, and so forth. That is the real science.

The problem with the latest experiments concerning the origin of the universe is that they assume space. Our universe includes space, which is currently expanding, and was created at the big bang. Prior to the big bang there was no space so these particles that “were always going to happen” had nothing to pop into. Supposing even that there was nothing, not even space, when did these particles start popping into existence and why? Such knowledge is actually beyond our limits since everything we “know” is timed based on the big bang. To be an atheist, you must believe that the laws of nature can create something from nothing and that these laws unfold all on their own. As I ponder this, I tell you that it is truly difficult to grasp that concept. It’s a long shot away from what is concrete such as 2+2=4. My mind readily accepts mathematics. I ask you, who or what determined what the laws of nature are? Chance?

Corrupt religious leaders are not evidence that what the Bible says is false. In the Old Testament, there were false prophets. In the New Testament, Jesus himself disapproved of the Pharisees, Sadducees, and chief priests. It is no surprise that these things continue to the present. Is my belief comforting? Certainly for as the apostle Paul said “I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us.” Is it for the psychologically weak? It takes me a good amount of mental strength to restrain myself from lusting after women. I should also mention that it is not like I am enslaved to some rigid doctrine for I acknowledge the beauty of women but I try not to allow my sexual nature to lead me to any sin of the body or mind.

Barney, no amount of time will change what is absolutely true. Mondrian, Is what I say not worthy of a little thought?

[mondrian]

Red

I thought that you said that you saw the vid about particles that are self creating. Obviously you mis-understood. I thought that you had studied physics.That

When the initial particles came into being, a space time continuum was, at the same instant, also created. That space time continuum, thus created, allowed the particles to exist.

You said: You are right in saying that if the science contradicts the Bible then it is a different matter. I believe that if it contradicts the Bible then it is wrong;

So, you will trust a belief system (the bible) rather than provable science? That is illogical and I despair. There is no hope for you. I fear that your father has done too much harm.

It is sad really.

[Niels_n_Stuff]

Each of us can gather teachers to ourselves that say what we want to hear. Each of us can point to different sources, but these people likely had already determined in their hearts whether or not God existed before the evidence was available. In short, the teachings are biased.

What bullshit! As if everyone feels the need to 'like' everything they hear about how the universe works. Do you think I like the fact that our Sun is going to heat up in a few billion years making the Earth uninhabitable? Well, for your information that's still what's going to happen (nice design by God btw). Though I don't like it to be true, I still think it's useful information as it makes me appreciate the beauty of our little planet even more. It also makes me think about what the human race could do to go on surviving after this event has occurred. A true scientific perception of reality factors in ALL the available evidence, provided its empirical and measurable and thus cannot be biased by definition. Our perception of reality can be altered by the discovery of new empirical, measurable evidence.

Many people point to the difficulties in the Bible and many others give them explanations. They reject these explanations because they start off with the view that God is not a possibility.

That's such utter nonsense! The reason these explanations are rejected is because they either:
- are pure conjecture and thus do not explain anything;
- defy logic;
- are not based on any evidence whatsoever
Or a combination of all the above. God's existence doesn't even come into most of the difficulties you're referring to.

If you consider that God is a possibility, then I think you will find that the explanations are adequate.

What does this even mean? Example: God endorses slavery in Leviticus 25:44-46. You say: Yeah, I know that's fucked up but you have to consider the possibility that God exists. So what? Does that make slavery alright? God's existence changes nothing about an argument like this.

The church is not afraid of science rather we embrace it. Here is an excerpt from a statement adopted by the Assemblies of God:
“Ultimately, then, when God’s Word and God’s Work are properly understood and taught
by reverent scholarship, there is no disunity. “For since the creation of the world God’s
invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being
understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse” (Romans 1:20).
God has revealed himself in such a way as to invite us into an exploration of His nature
through both the Word and His Work, the Bible and scientific exploration.”

You are right in saying that if the science contradicts the Bible then it is a different matter. I believe that if it contradicts the Bible then it is wrong; that is, I turn into a skeptic of that study.

LOL, that's not being a skeptic. That's saying: there's always one true reality (The Bible) and everything that contradicts it is probably wrong. So you're biased right off the bat.
A scientific skeptic may doubt the outcome of certain research, but will remain open to the possibility that he/she is dead wrong. Such skeptics often find a way to perform the research themselves or become a peer-reviewer of the research that was carried out to check stuff like whether an experiment was performed under the right conditions, whether the calculations upon which the research is based were correct, wheter the method of testing was all-inclusive, etc.
I doubt you ever did anything remotely like the above when you were 'skeptical' about certain science.

Please get this:
Science is completely UNBIASED. All evidence is taken into account, not just the evidence scientists happen to like. If you can prove me wrong on this account, please do. And think about it, aside from your religion is there any other aspect of your life for which you need anything other than actual evidence to determine your actions?

I agree with certain aspects of evolution. For evolution, more specifically speciation, (I do not agree with the whole of it) explains the varieties of creatures we have but does not have an answer for the origin of life. Richard Dawkins himself said that evolution is not an answer for the origin of life. I believe from one horse we can get zebras, donkeys, and so forth. That is the real science.

Sigh. No, evolution does not explain the origin of life. There's a whole other study about that called abiogenesis. Go study up on that will you and never EVER confuse this area of science with evolution again.

The problem with the latest experiments concerning the origin of the universe is that they assume space. Our universe includes space, which is currently expanding, and was created at the big bang. Prior to the big bang there was no space so these particles that “were always going to happen” had nothing to pop into. Supposing even that there was nothing, not even space, when did these particles start popping into existence and why? Such knowledge is actually beyond our limits since everything we “know” is timed based on the big bang. To be an atheist, you must believe that the laws of nature can create something from nothing and that these laws unfold all on their own. As I ponder this, I tell you that it is truly difficult to grasp that concept. It’s a long shot away from what is concrete such as 2+2=4. My mind readily accepts mathematics. I ask you, who or what determined what the laws of nature are? Chance?

No-one knows whether empty space (the type of nothing that Lawrence Krauss refers to as nothing) has always existed or whether there was something (or what you would describe as truly nothing) before that.
Positing the possibility of a God in there does not solve ANY problems. In fact it only creates problems that I do not need to mention here (I assume you've gotten to hear them a few times by now).

Your assumption that Atheists must believe that the laws of nature created the universe from nothing is completely flawed. It's called a false dichotomy. You assume there's only two possibilities (either God created the universe or the universe created itself from nothing). There's the multi-verse theory, inter-dimensional beings could have created our universe, etc.

Corrupt religious leaders are not evidence that what the Bible says is false.

Who on this forum ever even remotely said anything like this? Prove it please. I fully aknowledge that a connection like this is completely absurd, but I daresay I find it unlikely to the highest degree that anyone on this forum would ever seriously imply it.

[mondrian]

A few minor points, if I may, good sir.

Firstly, a bloody good post.

Secondly, Science itself is completely unbiased. Sadly, Scientists can be. In fact, some have even lied. Suggest you read about Freud?

Thirdly, space is NOT a pre-requisite for matter. Before our universe was created, there was no time and no space. There was a 'nothingness'. From recent experiments, it would appear that 'nothing' is unstable. Why this 'nothingness' is unstable is not yet fully understood. That instability ultimately resulted in spontaneous particle creation, and, at the same instant, the space and time for those particles to exist in. At that point the universe, that we now observed, began its existence. At least, this is my understanding.

[Niels_n_Stuff]

mondrian wrote

A few minor points, if I may, good sir.

Firstly, a bloody good post.

Secondly, Science itself is completely unbiased. Sadly, Scientists can be. In fact, some have even lied. Suggest you read about Freud?

Thirdly, space is NOT a pre-requisite for matter. Before our universe was created, there was no time and no space. There was a 'nothingness'. From recent experiments, it would appear that 'nothing' is unstable. Why this 'nothingness' is unstable is not yet fully understood. That instability ultimately resulted in spontaneous particle creation, and, at the same instant, the space and time for those particles to exist in. At that point the universe, that we now observed, began its existence. At least, this is my understanding.

You're right, scientists can be biased. Hence the risk of bad science. Hence the invention of peer-review, but I don't have to tell you that

I was under the misapprehension you could call the 'nothingness' you're referring to 'space' as well. My bad.

[mondrian]

Niels_n_Stuff wrote

You're right, scientists can be biased. Hence the risk of bad science. Hence the invention of peer-review, but I don't have to tell you that

I was under the misapprehension you could call the 'nothingness' you're referring to 'space' as well. My bad.

Freud's shit still got passed peer review and the toss-pot's mutterings are, to this day, still taught in universities. Sometimes, I despair.

The human mind is programmed to conceptualise 3-D space. Fairy snuff.

The human mind 'thinks' it can conceptualise 2-D. Fuck me, they even teach kids about 2-D shapes in some glib manner in primary school. Even an object which is only one atom thick is 3-D ffs.

The human mind 'thinks' it can conceptualise 1-D a la M-Theory. Balls, what does something that only has 1 dimension look like?

When it comes to conceptualising 'nothing', it's game over for the brain. It calls it 'space'. But, it ain't space cos space is 3-D and has a time dimension. This 'Nothing' isn't anything 'cos it's devoid of dimension and time. It literally doesn't exist because, for it to exist, there has to be 'something' for it to exist in and there ain't.

Shit. Now I understand why fuck-wits buy the god concept. So much easier, don't you think? Just some fuckin' sky fairy that's all-knowing, that created everything and that always existed. Done, dusted. No more thinking. Just believe in him and get on with life. god is a solution in a can, man!

Well, as for me, I like to exercise what I laughingly call a brain and think about such stuff. Fuck the god shit. It's just piss-poor logic if you ask me. Not to mention an easy way out for half-wits.

[ILOVEJESUS]

To even fall into the trap of "what existed before existence" is futile at the moment. Science doesn't have any solid understanding. However till you can define what a "God" is and how it exists outside of time and space, (including how the duck it was created), the question is pointless. It just leads an atheist to sound unsure as the question is totally loaded against them.
We will need to know a lot more first about dark matter and energy. Also about particle like the Higgs, which could well shed new light on alternate dimensions and indeed multi verses etc. A provable platform at the base level of particles, (is string theory going to be the answer?), is also going to need to be answered before we can gain even half way to a solid idea as to what happened pre "big bang".