Absolutely Nothing: Atheists on What They Know About What They Pretend to Discuss

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

When one sort of thinks that things cannot get anymore inane and stupid, out comes the total nonsense as above.....
https://www.theguardian.com/science...flecting-on-religion-up-for-auction-christies
Einstein says: “The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive, legends which are nevertheless pretty childish.”
"He said he believed in “Spinoza’s God” – referring to Baruch Spinoza, a 17th-century Dutch thinker – “who reveals himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind”.
A harmony as dictated by science:
“Einstein offers scant consolation to either party in this debate. His cosmic religion and distant deistic God fits neither the agenda of religious believers or that of tribal atheists."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_and_philosophical_views_of_Albert_Einstein
Einstein's religious views have been widely studied and often misunderstood.[1]Einstein stated that he believed in the pantheistic God of Baruch Spinoza.[2] He did not believe in a personal God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings, a view which he described as naïve.[3] He clarified however that, "I am not an atheist",[4] preferring to call himself an agnostic,[5] or a "religious nonbeliever."[3] Einstein also stated he did not believe in life after death, adding "one life is enough for me."[6] He was closely involved in his lifetime with several humanist groups"
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>

As usual, Jan continues with his usual...lies, misinterpretations and redefining texts.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Here is a cartoon clip from BBC which is absolute proof of evolution.

Alex

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I have taken your lead Jan, as you told all of us your can rely on your feeling.

Who needs words words when you just know you are right.

I know I am right what more do you need.

Now all here in some way have helped you to understand and reluctantly accept Darwinism so now it's your turn so please tell us why you believe ID given it is just a belief.
Alex
Why do you believe ID

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No, obviously we are discussing your refusal to recognise scientific facts.
With regards to me explaining it, I take the overwhelming evidence as presented, which you stupidly refuse due to your baggage.

It's far more desirable and morally responsible to speak of the science that is available in as few words as possible, rather then to continue to rant and rave and preach your lies.

"We all"? You mean you and river?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Again, What I or you believe is neither here nor there..you don't matter one iota Jan...Your words in derision of science and in pretentious jest, are like dust in the wind...lost forever.

Live with your delusions Jan, if they make you comfortable, just as you need to live with your mythical sky daddy to overcome your irrational fear of death and finality.

 

That is to be expected given the washings it has received...lay still as Paddo presses it again for you...
Alex

 

Sorry, Jan, I'm not jumping through your hoops. I have proven you as dishonest and a liar, and a charlatan that will redefine whatever necessary to support your flagging myth.
And of course all your questions have been answered many times.
Or are we now at the stage where you probably accept that in time you will be banned for your lies etc, and have decided to go down fighting?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Hey Paddo...

I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene." Einstein was then asked if he accepted the historical existence of Jesus, to which he replied, "Unquestionably! No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word.

What part of that don’t you understand?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I think Paddo’s running scared.
Maybe you can help him out with this quote...

I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene." Einstein was then asked if he accepted the historical existence of Jesus, to which he replied, "Unquestionably! No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word.

 

Why do you keep changing the subject?

 

I believe you have shown it to be polluted and braiwashed.

I'm denying nothing, that we have evidence for. We have no evidence for your sky daddy, but overwhelming evidence to make Darwinism and the theory of evolution fact.

What evidence? Waht am I missing out on?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I can see the awe on wonder in the universe, and the evidence in fossils etc that validate Darwinism and evolution.
I reject the mythical concept of some magical entity that supposedly created everything, because we have evidence that it was another way...that of the BB and Darwinism evolution.

 

If Alex wants to add his knowledge he is welcome. I accept help of any reasonable human being.

? Yep, so he believes Jesus existed? so? He also mentions religion in some of my links. But I don't see anything about divinity, or Jesus being the son of god or any other version of your sky daddy. He has also said religion gives us a moral compass in one of my links. So? That's what he meant by "science without religion is lame: Religion without science is blind"

Now can you explain what you are ranting on about? Is this simply frustration?

Oh, and I havn't reported you [I don't do that] but you should follow the rules and reference your quote...understand?

 

Why do you keep lying?

 

It is clear that he was tounge in cheek as he was educated well enough to know the Gospels were written by the Romans and JC was a character constructed referencing the many human gods invented by astrologers around the Mediterranean seeking to personify the Sun.

The history is clear and the great man would know that there would be two types listening to his words ...those who were well educated in history and knew the truth as evidenced by them never accepting the JC myth and those that had been brainwashed by Rome to believe their fabrications and behave exactly as Rome demanded via their mythical created character.

Anyways don't believe me go study the history it is readily accessible information as are lists of the various human gods taking their attributes from the Sun.

The Jews it is said never worshipped the Sun so why would they accept a human god based on Sun worship.

See if you can find out the meaning behind firstly the cross and secondly the circle that you see imposed on the cross..and the fish thing...it's stuff that given your interest I am surprised that you are unaware...or are you?...clearly there is stuff you know but reject as it shows your made up science, I D, to be fake.

You are predictable and so vulnerable to severe crushings.
Anyways pull yourself together an tell us why you think ID is credible.
Alex

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Is a virus designed?
Is cancer designed?
If so..WTF was he thinking?
Alex

 

That is crushing evidence Paddo.
Alex

 

Yes, I'd have to sort through this entire thread, maybe soon...lol

I wonder if there are any atheists out there who disbelieve in the theory of evolution? For the most part, it seems that these discussions end up with two sides battling as they always do...people of faith against athesists/agnostics. I'll have to research that a bit, and see what I can find.

I'm doing well, despite these trying times. Keep safe, Jan!

 

I have made a major breakthrough with the science of intelligent design.
We always assumed there was one designer and that could never work.
I propose there would be various designers, structural, artistic, animal, macro and micro...at least fifteen and a half designers...it seems so real to me and lends itself to being taught in schools because you came divide it into sections.
Now the high number of designers helps with who were they...obviously aliens each with their speciality ...humans? Well one of the designers brought his kid to work one day and let him play with the modelling clay and told him to have a go at making some apes...the designer was very impressed even though the kid could not get hair on the body and it's poo throwing wasn't up to scratch but as he was behind schedule he thought throw it in the box and put it out there for the tigers to eat...I feel it's right so it's true.
Alex

 

A list of folks have provided a number of answers but for some reason none of those answers satisfy your curiosity even though they were valid answers. The question should be put to you, Jan, and this is, what answer exactly are you looking to hear?

If you asked why fossilization was a fact, the answers given would be along the same lines as were given with your inquiry on evolution. yet we can't observe in real time the process of fossilization in the same way we can't observe in real time the process of evolution in which one species can become another.

So, you'll need to explain exactly what answer you want to hear or else the entire discussion looks as if you're just trolling. Would you agree?

 

Jan has a problem..he knows that as everyone that has observed him on this forum also knows. I'm not going to go on about how he has been caught out lying in this post, rather an interesting article on the subject of scientific faith as to religious faith and which Jan is also pushing. Making a long story short as possible, scientific faith is actually trust in science and the scientific method...therein lies the crunch. Science has proven itself.
Anyway enough of me and some extracts from a good article....
https://www.theatlantic.com/science...aith-isnt-the-same-as-religious-faith/417357/

extracts:
"It is true that scientists take certain things on faith. It is also true that religious narratives might speak to human needs that scientific theories can’t hope to satisfy.

And yet, scientific practices—observation and experiment; the development of falsifiable hypotheses; the relentless questioning of established views—have proven uniquely powerful in revealing the surprising, underlying structure of the world we live in, including subatomic particles, the role of germs in the spread of disease, and the neural basis of mental life.
Religion has no equivalent record of discovering hidden truths."

"Most of us carry in our heads a hodgepodge of scientific views and religious views, and they often feel the same—because they are learned, understood, and mentally encoded in similar ways".

"There are many religious views that are not the product of common-sense ways of seeing the world. Consider the story of Adam and Eve, or the virgin birth of Christ, or Muhammad ascending to heaven on a winged horse. These are not the product of innate biases. They are learned, and, more surprisingly, they are learned in a special way.

To come to accept such religious narratives is not like learning that grass is green or that stoves can be hot; it is not like picking up stereotypes or customs or social rules. Instead, these narratives are acquired through the testimony of others, from parents or peers or religious authorities. Accepting them requires a leap of faith, but not a theological leap of faith. Rather, a leap in the mundane sense that you must trust the people who are testifying to their truth.


Many religious narratives are believed without even being understood. People will often assert religious claims with confidence—there exists a God, he listens to my prayers, I will go to Heaven when I die—but with little understanding, or even interest, in the details."
"We believe that we should accept them, and that others—at least those who belong to our family and community—should accept them as well."

"Many scientific views endorsed by non-specialists are credences as well. Some people reading this will say they believe in natural selection, but not all will be able to explain how natural selection works. (As an example, how does this theory explain the evolution of the eye?) It turns out that those who assert the truth of natural selection are often unable to define it, or, worse, have it confused with some long-rejected pre-Darwinian notion that animals naturally improve over time.

There are exceptions, of course. There are those who can talk your ear off about cap and trade, and can delve into the minutiae of selfish gene theory and group selection. And there are people of faith who can justify their views with powerful arguments.

But much of what’s in our heads are credences, not beliefs we can justify—and there’s nothing wrong with this. Life is too brief; there is too much to know and not enough time. We need epistemological shortcuts.

Given my day job, I know something about psychology and associated sciences, but if you press me on the details of climate change, or the evidence about vaccines and autism, I’m at a loss. I believe that global warming is a serious problem and that vaccines do not cause autism, but this is not because I have studied these issues myself".

"The physicist Richard Feynman once wrote that the essence of science was “bending over backwards to prove ourselves wrong.” But he was talking about the collective cultural activity of science, not scientists as individuals, most of whom prefer to be proven right, and who are highly biased to see the evidence in whatever light most favors their preferred theory.

But science as an institution behaves differently than particular scientists. Science establishes conditions where rational argument is able to flourish, where ideas can be tested against the world, and where individuals can work together to surpass their individual limitations. Science is not just one “faith community” among many. It has earned its epistemological stripes. And when the stakes are high, as they are with climate change and vaccines, we should appreciate its special status.


It is because I trust the scientists.

Most of those who insist that the Earth is 6000 years old and that global warming is a liberal fraud and that vaccines destroy children’s brains would also be at a loss to defend these views. Like me, they defer, just to different authorities.

This equivalence might lead to a relativist conclusion—you have your faith; I have mine. You believe weird things on faith (virgin birth, winged horse); I believe weird things on faith (invisible particles, Big Bang), and neither of us fully understands what we’re really talking about. But there is a critical difference. Some sorts of deference are better than others.

It’s better to get a cancer diagnosis from a radiologist than from a Ouija Board. It’s better to learn about the age of the universe from an astrophysicist than from a Rabbi. The New England Journal of Medicine is a more reliable source about vaccines than the actress Jenny McCarthy. These preferences are not ideological. We’re not talking about Fox News versus The Nation. They are rational, because the methods of science are demonstrably superior at getting at truths about the natural world."
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
I hope that Jan takes the time to read the article, although I believe he is actually a lost cause, still an interesting article for others.