Creationists vs Flat Earthers

Incl. intelligent design, belief in divine creation

Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Onyx8

Re: Creationists vs Flat Earthers

#41  Postby The_Metatron » May 16, 2014 8:47 pm

Betelgeuse wrote:
laklak wrote:Yeah, those ****ing ignorant asshats, Sagan and Asimov! Going on about Billions and Billions and space ships and stuff. Don't forget that other ignorant twat, Arthur C. Clarke, with his stupid idea for "communication satellites". LOL! How would those "satellites" stay up in the air, huh Mr. Smartypants Scientist? Huh? You ever throw a rock in the air? Know what happens? It falls DOWN, that's what! Dumb **** scientists.

Your ignorance is deep and wide.

1. Never mind spaceships, Isaac Asimov too afraid of commercial jets to ride in one. What an intergalactic adventurer HE was.

2. Asimov was so enamored of himself that he ignored his own family. Asimov admitted that his typewriter was his best friend.
As a result of his miserable treatment of his family, Asimov's son was prosecuted for having child porn on his computer in Northern California some years ago. I think he would be a fine candidate for your group of "rational" (ha ha ha) skeptics.

3. With respect to your shallow remark on rocks, in one of Asimov's silly books, he claimed that if you threw a rock up in the air, it would continue on forever. I pointed out to the silly man his neglect of, oh, air resistance, for one.

4. "Sex was invented." - Carl Sagan
We should increase the cost of gasoline five cents a gallon to reduce its consumption. (paraphrased) - Carl Sagan
That remark came at a time when gasoline cost much less than a dollar a gallon. How much has the quadrupling of the cost of gasoline decreased consumption? Not as much as Sagan pretended a nickel would do. Nor did Sagan seem to care that such costs fall disproportionately on the poor. He was so rich, why should he have cared.

5. You brought up Arthur C. Clarke, I did not. What other brilliant remarks do you have to add to this profane and "intellectual" rant?

No, it was a vulgar rant. Learn the difference.
I AM Skepdickus!

Check out Hack's blog, too. He writes good.
User avatar
The_Metatron
Moderator
 
Name: Jesse
Posts: 21078
Age: 58
Male

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Creationists vs Flat Earthers

#42  Postby Betelgeuse » May 17, 2014 2:58 am

Spearthrower wrote:

Doing it for God!

And so on... there are lots of them! I don't find it particularly surprising as they all seem to have replaced their brains with Bibles.


Yes indeed, Sir Isaac Newton did just that. No brains, just a Bible. Ditto with the founders of the Ivy League Colleges they organized for the purpose of teaching and learning.

Name for me one atheist college, please.

Again and again, I see arrogant pretensions of intellect by atheists, who hatefully attack "Bible-thumpers."
Then you have the temerity to claim you have been subjected to the same ad hominem attacks you relentlessly repeat.

Atheists are consumed by hatred, intolerance, and narcissism. What a pleasant bunch.
User avatar
Betelgeuse
Banned Troll
 
Name: Robert Davis
Posts: 28

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Creationists vs Flat Earthers

#43  Postby Rumraket » May 17, 2014 7:21 am

Betelgeuse wrote:
Durro wrote:I wonder, what do Creationists think about Flat Earthers ?

///

What approach would you take to help educate these sorts of people ?



There is a planet full of ignorant people, and you profess concern over those who claim to believe in a flat earth?

There are far more Carl Sagan and Isaac Asimov worshippers than flat earthers. Who will try to convert the Sagan and Asimov blind followers, just as one example?

Sagan smiled while pocketing millions of dollars on commercial television, after he condemned commercial television in one of his books. Sagan preached his version of agnostic science, while besmirching Richard Nixon, and Ronald Reagan. But Sagan never had an unkind word to say about any of his fellow lefties.

Asimov was far more ignorant and biased than Sagan. He was so ignorant in fact that he feared flying and never rode in a commercial jet. Both of their books are replete with scientific ignorance and errors. Inexcusable. Too late to educate them or their sycophants, who will quickly rise to this occasion on their behalf.

:rofl:
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13215
Age: 40

Print view this post

Re: Creationists vs Flat Earthers

#44  Postby Rumraket » May 17, 2014 7:37 am

Betelgeuse wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:

Doing it for God!

And so on... there are lots of them! I don't find it particularly surprising as they all seem to have replaced their brains with Bibles.


Yes indeed, Sir Isaac Newton did just that. No brains, just a Bible. Ditto with the founders of the Ivy League Colleges they organized for the purpose of teaching and learning.

There's a difference between inadvertently believing in god while being a great scientist, and being a great scientist because of belief in god. What is primarily required to be a great scientist is curiosity, tenacity and critical thinking. To want to find out how stuff works, whether you believe god made that stuff or not is utterly irrelevant. God belief is entirely superflous in this respect.

It simply happens to be the case that for most of history, most people were religioust believers of one sort or another. For most of that history, that very same religious belief was not optional but was ruthlessly enforced by society and various kinds of faith-police.

Just as we can find cases of people's god belief inspiring them to want to understand "god's handiwork", we can find cases of that same god belief inspiring people to declare some mystery unsolvable or to be forbidden knowledge. Heck, sometimes we can even find examples of people's god belief leading them down the wrong path and wasting a lot of time on silly digressions. Case in point, see Johannes Keppler's obsession with the perfect platonic solids.

Betelgeuse wrote:Name for me one atheist college, please.

All colleges where you don't sign statements of faith to attend, or who don't formally declare their allegience to some particular faith, are "atheist colleges". What the founder may or may not have believed is irrelevant.

Curiously, lack of religiosity is strongly correlated with higher education. The most atheistic groupings are scientists and philosophers.

Betelgeuse wrote:Again and again, I see arrogant pretensions of intellect by atheists, who hatefully attack "Bible-thumpers."

Again and again, I see raging* and butthurt christians, hatefully lashing out against a world full of scientific and social progress that increasingly makes their puerile religion and it's silly, mythical promises of magical masturbation, more and more irrelevant.

The bronze age is over, it's time they got with the program.

* The name of the red supergiant star Betelgeuse is so aptly chosen for this example, being swollen, red and on the verge of collapse in a cataclysmic explosion.

Betelgeuse wrote:Then you have the temerity to claim you have been subjected to the same ad hominem attacks you relentlessly repeat.

Atheists are consumed by hatred, intolerance, and narcissism. What a pleasant bunch.

You cannot find better irony than this. Complain about atheist complaining about being subjected to ad hominem attacks, while engaging in ad hominems against atheists.

This one goes into my file of "stupid shit religious believers say".
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13215
Age: 40

Print view this post

Re: Creationists vs Flat Earthers

#45  Postby Oeditor » May 17, 2014 8:29 pm

Betelgeuse wrote:Your ignorance is deep and wide.

1. Never mind spaceships, Isaac Asimov was too afraid of commercial jets to ride in one. What an intergalactic adventurer HE was.
You may not have noticed, but although a professional scientist Asimov is noted mainly as a writer of fiction. Something which isn't known for incompatibility with a fear of flying. Nor, for that matter, is a science fiction author required to be a galactic traveller. Any more than a clerical satirist is required to actually visit a land of tiny people before writing about them.
The very reason food is sealed is to keep information out. - Gary Ablett Snr.
Oeditor
 
Posts: 4581
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Creationists vs Flat Earthers

#46  Postby laklak » May 17, 2014 8:36 pm

WHo yew callin' an intealekshul? My granpappy didn need no intealek, my pappy didn need no intealek and I don need no intealeks. Alls I needs to no is in that Good Book! Don need no stupid sciency stuff, ain't no periodontal chart of elephants nor adam smooshers gonna git yew past them Pearly Gates!
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way. - Mark Twain
The sky is falling! The sky is falling! - Chicken Little
I never go without my dinner. No one ever does, except vegetarians and people like that - Oscar Wilde
User avatar
laklak
RS Donator
 
Name: Florida Man
Posts: 20878
Age: 67
Male

Country: The Great Satan
Swaziland (sz)
Print view this post

Re: Creationists vs Flat Earthers

#47  Postby Thomas Eshuis » May 17, 2014 8:47 pm

Betelgeuse wrote:
laklak wrote:Yeah, those ****ing ignorant asshats, Sagan and Asimov! Going on about Billions and Billions and space ships and stuff. Don't forget that other ignorant twat, Arthur C. Clarke, with his stupid idea for "communication satellites". LOL! How would those "satellites" stay up in the air, huh Mr. Smartypants Scientist? Huh? You ever throw a rock in the air? Know what happens? It falls DOWN, that's what! Dumb **** scientists.


Your ignorance is deep and wide.

:lol:
What is the exact m^3 of his ignorance?

Betelgeuse wrote:1. Never mind spaceships, Isaac Asimov was too afraid of commercial jets to ride in one. What an intergalactic adventurer HE was.

So fucking what?
Seriously what point do you think you're making with silly statements like these?

Betelgeuse wrote:2. Asimov was so enamored of himself that he ignored his own family. Asimov admitted that his typewriter was his best friend.

Again, what's that got to do with the price of fish?
Betelgeuse wrote:As a result of his miserable treatment of his family, Asimov's son was prosecuted for having child porn on his computer in Northern California some years ago.

Citations for this causal link?
Didn't think so. :nono:

Betelgeuse wrote:I think he would be a fine candidate for your group of "rational" (ha ha ha) skeptics.

You do realise that childish remarks like these will only further undermine your image?

Betelgeuse wrote:3. With respect to your shallow remark on rocks, in one of Asimov's silly books, he claimed that if you threw a rock up in the air, it would continue on forever. I pointed out to the silly man his neglect of, oh, air resistance, for one.

Again, so fucking what?


Betelgeuse wrote:4. "Sex was invented." - Carl Sagan

How is this in any way relevant to this topic?
Carl Sagan wasn't a biologist.
More-over, what is the actual context of that statement?

Betelgeuse wrote:We should increase the cost of gasoline five cents a gallon to reduce its consumption. (paraphrased) - Carl Sagan
That remark came at a time when gasoline cost much less than a dollar a gallon. How much has the quadrupling of the cost of gasoline decreased consumption? Not as much as Sagan pretended a nickel would do. Nor did Sagan seem to care that such costs fall disproportionately on the poor. He was so rich, why should he have cared.

You really do not get this do you?
Sagan is just another human being. We do not refer him like a pope or saint.


Betelgeuse wrote:5. You brought up Arthur C. Clarke, I did not. What other brilliant remarks do you have to add to this profane and "intellectual" rant?

Matthew 7:3

"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 31088
Age: 31
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Creationists vs Flat Earthers

#48  Postby Thomas Eshuis » May 17, 2014 8:50 pm

Betelgeuse wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:

Doing it for God!

And so on... there are lots of them! I don't find it particularly surprising as they all seem to have replaced their brains with Bibles.


Yes indeed, Sir Isaac Newton did just that. No brains, just a Bible. Ditto with the founders of the Ivy League Colleges they organized for the purpose of teaching and learning.

Name for me one atheist college, please.

I can do you better, 'atheist' univeristies:
University of Groningen
University of Amsterdam
University of Leiden
University of Upsalla.

Need I go on?
Not that this matters fuck all, since it proves nothing about a causal link between theism and good education.

Betelgeuse wrote:Again and again, I see arrogant pretensions of intellect by atheists, who hatefully attack "Bible-thumpers."
Then you have the temerity to claim you have been subjected to the same ad hominem attacks you relentlessly repeat.

Atheists are consumed by hatred, intolerance, and narcissism. What a pleasant bunch.


Matthew 7:3

"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 31088
Age: 31
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Creationists vs Flat Earthers

#49  Postby Calilasseia » May 17, 2014 9:24 pm

Betelgeuse wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:

Doing it for God!

And so on... there are lots of them! I don't find it particularly surprising as they all seem to have replaced their brains with Bibles.


Yes indeed, Sir Isaac Newton did just that. No brains, just a Bible.


Actually, those of us who paid attention in science class know how Isaac Newton achieved his synthesis of physics. Namely, by paying attention to the real world data, along with deploying the mathematical tool he is credited with inventing along with Leibniz, namely differential and integral calculus. He simply didn''t bother with Bronze Age mythology, because it had nothing to say on the subject. It never mentoned gravity (which Newton devised a universal law for), it never mentioned the relationships between variables and their rates of change, indeed, it has zero mention of any of a vast range of entities and phenomena that scientists have not only alighted upon, but placed within the remit of precise, pedictively useful quantitative theories. The authors of your favourite mythology were incapable of even fantasising about said entities and phenomena, and indeed were strikingly ignorant of concepts that even Newton alighted upon, let alone later scientists such as Einstein, Dirac, Schrödinger and Bohr.

Of course, science has moved on since Newton's day, not least because, after 250 years of spectacular success, scientists reached the point where they were able to alight upon entities and phenomena that Newton's physics could not model. Which led to a lot of serious deliberation upon the part of those scientists, as to why a physics that had been so spectacularly successful elsewhere for 250 years was now letting them down. But, instead of pretending that the data was wrong, and the ideas were right, they set about trying to develop new ideas, that not only encompassed the entities and phenomena successfully modelled by Newton's physics, but modelled the new entities and phenomena as well. At this point, Einstein entered the fray with relativity, and not only provided a system that could be extended successfully to those new entities and phenomena, but provided an explanation, in turn, as to why Newton's physics had appeared to be so spectacularly successful in the past. Courtesy of the fact that in relativistic coordinate transformations, a new term known as the Lorentz Gamma Factor appears, which takes the form:

γ(v) = [1-(v2/c2)]

Now, it so happens that when one is dealing with low velocities, γ(v) is extremely close to 1, so when dealing with the sort of velocities familiar to Newton, the error arising from using a Newtonian analysis doesn't become visible until one is working to 15 decimal places or more. Since Newton was working in an era during which the fastest form of transport was the horse, and in an era where measuring to just two decimal places was considered an achievement, it's hardly surprising that he alighted upon the equations he did. Once scientists had moved on, by building upon Newton's equations, and using them in situations where the error was undetectable, to produce answers that were in accord with observation as far as could be determined, they reached the point where they were able to alight upon entities and phenomena for which Newton's equations failed to be in accord with observation, and Einstein stepped up to the plate, providing equations that remained valid for both old and new phenomena, and containing an explanation for the previous apparent success of the antecedent physics.

Indeed, the error arising from using Newton's equations doesn't become noticeable until one is travelling at speeds in excess of 10% the speed of light, and only becomes seriously significant when one is past around 70% the speed of light. Which is why NASA still uses Newtonian equations (albeit somewhat modified) to plot spaceflight trajectories for interplanetary probes. To give an idea of the success NASA has enjoyed by this process, the Cassini-Huygens mission to Titan was simulated in a computer, routed to involve three gravity slingshots (one past Venus, one past the Earth, and a third past Jupiter), and the spaceflight plan based thereupon. When the probe arrived at Titan, after the mission planning and the launch, after a flight involving 7 years in space and 7 billion kilometres travelled, NASA was able to place the Cassini-Huygens spacecraft in orbit around Titan, to within just 20 metres of where they wanted it to be. Of course, the reason NASA still uses Newtonian equations, is because they're algebraically and computationally much simpler than relativistic equations, and don't introduce gross navigational errors even for long spaceflights. Indeed, the value of γ(v) for velocities of the order of those achieved by the Space Shuttle, differs from 1 only in the 8th decimal place, and one can devise ways and means of handling cumulative errors over the long term by judicious use of relevant analytical techniques.

Quite simply, Newton's equations survive because they're still useful in situations not involving relativistic phenomena. One doesn't need to resort to four-dimensional Minkowskian tensors in order to build a house that does the job. The moment one moves on to building particle accelerators, it's time to move on to Einstein if they're going to work. But it's apposite at this point to note that Newton achieved a synthesis of physics, within the limitations of his historical era, that was successful for 250 years,and only fell by the wayside as the best working set of laws when its previous successes had enabled physicists to explore entities and phenomena outside its remit. What's more, he did this without once turning to Bronze Age mythology. Which should be telling you something important about the likely probability of said mythology being something other than the products of ignorant, pre-scientific Middle Eastern nomads who couldn't count correctly the number of legs that an insect possesses.

Moving on ...

Betelgeuse wrote:Ditto with the founders of the Ivy League Colleges they organized for the purpose of teaching and learning.


What fantasies the founders thereof may have entertained, and what those subsequently attending those institutions devised during their research, are two entirely different subjects. Once again, I note with interest how, in something like 300 years of the existence of the Royal Society, the number of papers published thereby in the field of physics, that at some point says "oops, we can't explain this, therefore we need a magic man" is precisely zero. A similar statement applies to the work of scientists in those Ivy League universities. Indeed, I keep reminding people of that elementary principle in operation in the hard sciences, namely, that when testable natural processes are demonstrated to be sufficient to explain the behaviour of a class of entities and phenomena of interest, supernatural entities become superfluous to requirements and irrelevant.

Betelgeuse wrote:Name for me one atheist college, please.


Try "every academic establishment that doesn't enforce conformity to a doctrinal statement".

Betelgeuse wrote:Again and again, I see arrogant pretensions of intellect by atheists


Oh, you mean "arrogant pretensions" such as actually learning about a subject before pontificating thereupon? See my above exposition on the history of physics.

Betelgeuse wrote:who hatefully attack "Bible-thumpers."


Yawn. Learn this lesson once and for all. Pointing out that supernaturalist assertions, and the associated apologetic fabrications, are replete with error, paradox, internal contradiction, and as a corollary, constitute a wholly unsound basis for both advancement of substantive knowledge and policy formulation, isn't motivated by "hate", much as supernaturalists like to caricature the process in this manner, it's motivated by determining if the requisite assertions are sound. I refer you once again to that successful principle deployed by the sciences, namely, ideas are disposable entities, and the decision to dispose of an idea is made when that idea fails to be in accord with the entities and phenomena it purports to describe. Quite simply, many supernaturalist assertions are couched in such obscurantist terms, and are frequently deliberately constructed to avoid critical scrutiny, that they fail to be testable from the very start, and are therefore useless as a foundation for substantive knowledge. Worse still, those that are accidentally discovered to be testable, all too frequently fail the requisite tests when applied.

Mistaking exasperation at seeing grown adults continue to cling to ideas that should have been disposed of long ago, for "hatred", is another frequently observed aspect of the supernaturalist aetiology, that many of us here are familiar with. Though we're also familiar with the manner in which the more duplicitous pedlars of supernaturalist apologetics, rather than mistaking said exasperation for "hatred", wilfully misrepresent it as such. Demonising the opposition for failing to conform to a beloved doctrine, and misrepresenting entirely proper suspicion of unsupported assertions, as purportedly constituting malicious "rejection" of something held up as purportedly constituting "truth", is another aspect of the aetiology we're familiar with here. You aren't the first to display this in your posts,and we suspect you won'tbe the last.

Betelgeuse wrote:Then you have the temerity to claim you have been subjected to the same ad hominem attacks you relentlessly repeat.


Once again, learn this elementary principle. You are not your ideas. I know supernaturalists have difficulty with this, and repeatedly demonstrate said difficulty on a grand scale when posting here, but please exert the effort. Saying "your ideas fail to survive even elementary scrutiny" isn't an ad hominem. Unlike your accusations of us as being purportedly motivated by "hate".

Betelgeuse wrote:Atheists are consumed by hatred, intolerance, and narcissism.


Congratulations upon demonstrating the point I was making above so quickly. Rumraket's earlier observations on this slanderous assertion of yours render much subsequent comment superfluous to requirements, though I am tempted to point out at this juncture, that if anyone is to be accused of "narcissism", then this charge surely applies to people who think that they're "special" because an imaginary magic man purportedly fabricated an entire universe just for them. This is a level of hubris we simply don't possess.

Betelgeuse wrote:What a pleasant bunch.


In the light of the above examination of your post, many here will be tempted to read this last sentence of yours and immediately think "oh, the irony".
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
User avatar
Calilasseia
RS Donator
 
Posts: 22091
Age: 59
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Creationists vs Flat Earthers

#50  Postby Betelgeuse » May 18, 2014 12:52 am

Calilasseia wrote:



What fantasies the founders thereof may have entertained, and what those subsequently attending those institutions devised during their research, are two entirely different subjects. Once again, I note with interest how, in something like 300 years of the existence of the Royal Society, the number of papers published thereby in the field of physics, that at some point says "oops, we can't explain this, therefore we need a magic man" is precisely zero.


Then we know everything do we? Everything about dark matter, and dark energy? How about gravity?
Create some gravity waves for me, please.

The attempt to understand the truth, and explain it, excludes any formal recognition of a Creator. Along this tortured route, mankind has not learned ultimate truth ("scientia") about the submicroscopic nor the supermacroscopic. You may not think it bizarre, absolutely improbable, and even absurd that everything is so exceedingly complex, having created itself out of nothing more than a "quantum vacuum," but I do think it bizarre to the point of impossibility.

Look up what Roger Penrose said about theologians waiting for centuries for science to catch up.


Calilasseia wrote:
Oh, you mean "arrogant pretensions" such as actually learning about a subject before pontificating thereupon? See my above exposition on the history of physics.


That fits in quite nicely with Einstein and his groupies the world over who rejected the Big Bang when Father Georges LeMaitre presented it to them. Einstein and all those world class physicists were too pretentious and irrational to see reality.


Calilasseia wrote:
Congratulations upon demonstrating the point I was making above so quickly. Rumraket's earlier observations on this slanderous assertion of yours render much subsequent comment superfluous to requirements, though I am tempted to point out at this juncture, that if anyone is to be accused of "narcissism", then this charge surely applies to people who think that they're "special" because an imaginary magic man purportedly fabricated an entire universe just for them. This is a level of hubris we simply don't possess.


I am outnumbered 100, 200, 300 to 1. Not one of you has uttered a word of condemnation against your pals who use four-letter profanities and epithets. This is ignorant, irrational, and hateful.

You misunderstand everything about Christianity, intentionally no doubt.

Jesus Christ was not "fabricated." He was a real person. Countless witnesses saw Him and testified to what they saw.
Christians believe our Creator made this universe for us. You believe it made itself, but not even for us. Everything simply.... happened.

You possess so much hubris that you think of your "explanations" as the only ones possible, and atheists overwhelmingly portray themselves as brilliant, rational, smart, and ridicule Christians with pathological hatred and intolerance... for something you claim not even to believe in. What nonsense.

Betelgeuse wrote:What a pleasant bunch.


In the light of the above examination of your post, many here will be tempted to read this last sentence of yours and immediately think "oh, the irony".[/quote]

How many times have you read "f***" in the posts of your little friends? No irony there. Only ignorant, spiteful childishness.
How many times have you and your little friends pretended to be brilliant, enlightened, and rational while failing even to write English correctly, spell words correctly, be decent to a new visitor, and at the very least, "give the devil his due"?

Almost never. That is how often you atheists show your "goodness" (ha, ha, ha, ha) and your decency, and your humanity.
It's the same with your lack of charity. It is documented in Who Really Cares.

Your unhappiness is also well-documented. You have no future. Nothing. Christians have hope. Christians can prosper by following Christ's teachings. Atheists have no standards, no laws. You form your own worldview of "goodness."
You are the consummate "good" of the universe.

You will never think "oh, the irony" in proclaiming your own "goodness" and "rationality" while you lampoon, attack, and spew venom, profane, ignorant venom, far and wide. It must make you very proud.

And now, I have nothing more to say to you, nothing more to read of yours. I suspect your life is about as unpleasant as Madeline Murray O'Hair made her own: "Won't somebody, somewhere LOVE ME!"

"Oh, the irony" of atheist "goodness," "rationality," and all things you profess.
User avatar
Betelgeuse
Banned Troll
 
Name: Robert Davis
Posts: 28

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Creationists vs Flat Earthers

#51  Postby Rachel Bronwyn » May 18, 2014 12:58 am

I'm actually impressed people here haven't been worse to you, given your abusive behaviour towards the entirety of this forum.
what a terrible image
User avatar
Rachel Bronwyn
 
Name: speaking moistly
Posts: 13521
Age: 32
Female

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Creationists vs Flat Earthers

#52  Postby laklak » May 18, 2014 1:46 am

Awwww didums.
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way. - Mark Twain
The sky is falling! The sky is falling! - Chicken Little
I never go without my dinner. No one ever does, except vegetarians and people like that - Oscar Wilde
User avatar
laklak
RS Donator
 
Name: Florida Man
Posts: 20878
Age: 67
Male

Country: The Great Satan
Swaziland (sz)
Print view this post

Re: Creationists vs Flat Earthers

#53  Postby Varangian » May 18, 2014 2:54 am

It is guys like Beetlejuice who make me happy I'm not a self-righteous, stuck-up religious bastard.
Image

"Bunch together a group of people deliberately chosen for strong religious feelings,
and you have a practical guarantee of dark morbidities." - H.P. Lovecraft
User avatar
Varangian
RS Donator
 
Name: Björn
Posts: 7298
Age: 56
Male

Country: Sweden
Sweden (se)
Print view this post

Re: Creationists vs Flat Earthers

#54  Postby Thomas Eshuis » May 18, 2014 8:25 am

Betelgeuse wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:
What fantasies the founders thereof may have entertained, and what those subsequently attending those institutions devised during their research, are two entirely different subjects. Once again, I note with interest how, in something like 300 years of the existence of the Royal Society, the number of papers published thereby in the field of physics, that at some point says "oops, we can't explain this, therefore we need a magic man" is precisely zero.


Then we know everything do we?

No. Stop trying to put words into peoples mouth.

Betelgeuse wrote:Everything about dark matter, and dark energy? How about gravity?
Create some gravity waves for me, please.

Display some intellectual honesty please.

Betelgeuse wrote:The attempt to understand the truth, and explain it, excludes any formal recognition of a Creator.

Scientists aren't interested in the truth, they're interested in facts.
So far no facts have been presented for the existence of a god or creator.

Betelgeuse wrote:Along this tortured route, mankind has not learned ultimate truth ("scientia")

Scientia means knowledge, not absolute anything, least of all truth.
You really just spout whatever bollocks comes to mind, without even checking whether it's true don't you?

Betelgeuse wrote:about the submicroscopic nor the supermacroscopic. You may not think it bizarre, absolutely improbable, and even absurd that everything is so exceedingly complex, having created itself out of nothing more than a "quantum vacuum," but I do think it bizarre to the point of impossibility.

No-one here has expressed that view. Once again you're tilting at straw-men.

Betelgeuse wrote:Look up what Roger Penrose said about theologians waiting for centuries for science to catch up.

Appeal to authority fallacy.
Also failing to understand what science actually is.

Betelgeuse wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:
Oh, you mean "arrogant pretensions" such as actually learning about a subject before pontificating thereupon? See my above exposition on the history of physics.


That fits in quite nicely with Einstein and his groupies the world over who rejected the Big Bang when Father Georges LeMaitre presented it to them. Einstein and all those world class physicists were too pretentious and irrational to see reality.

:roll:


Betelgeuse wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:
Congratulations upon demonstrating the point I was making above so quickly. Rumraket's earlier observations on this slanderous assertion of yours render much subsequent comment superfluous to requirements, though I am tempted to point out at this juncture, that if anyone is to be accused of "narcissism", then this charge surely applies to people who think that they're "special" because an imaginary magic man purportedly fabricated an entire universe just for them. This is a level of hubris we simply don't possess.


I am outnumbered 100, 200, 300 to 1.

Oh now we add a bit of David and Goliath to the persecution complex mix. :crazy:

Betelgeuse wrote:Not one of you has uttered a word of condemnation against your pals who use four-letter profanities and epithets.

Welcome to the third rule of public discourse:
http://larianlequella.blogspot.nl/2010/04/goldenmanes-third-rule-of-public.shtml

Betelgeuse wrote: This is ignorant, irrational, and hateful.

That is indeed an accurate summation of your posting history on this forum.

Betelgeuse wrote:You misunderstand everything about Christianity, intentionally no doubt.

Au contraire, we have a better understanding of the Christian religion than you have displayed thus far.

Betelgeuse wrote:Jesus Christ was not "fabricated." He was a real person.

There's no contemporary evidence to support that position. Though it is very likely that a guy named Jesus lived back then, that proves nothing about the Christian god.

Betelgeuse wrote:Countless witnesses saw Him and testified to what they saw.

Except that they didn't as there is not a single contemporary eyewitness account.

Betelgeuse wrote:Christians believe our Creator made this universe for us.

And some people believe the earth is flat and Elvis still lives. Don't make it true, now does it?

Betelgeuse wrote:You believe it made itself, but not even for us. Everything simply.... happened.

You have no fucking clue what any of us believe about the origins of the universe.
Once again your are disengenuously trying to put words into other peoples mouths.

Betelgeuse wrote:You I possess so much hubris that you I think of your my "explanations" as the only ones possible

FIFY.
Betelgeuse wrote:and atheists overwhelmingly portray themselves as brilliant, rational, smart, and ridicule Christians with pathological hatred and intolerance... for something you claim not even to believe in. What nonsense.

Yes this claim is complete nonsense. Why do you keep repeating it?

Betelgeuse wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:
Betelgeuse wrote:What a pleasant bunch.

In the light of the above examination of your post, many here will be tempted to read this last sentence of yours and immediately think "oh, the irony".


How many times have you read "f***" in the posts of your little friends?

Swear words are just that, words. They're not magic spells.

Betelgeuse wrote: No irony there. Only ignorant, spiteful childishness.

Image


Betelgeuse wrote: How many times have you and your little friends pretended to be brilliant, enlightened, and rational while failing even to write English correctly, spell words correctly, be decent to a new visitor, and at the very least, "give the devil his due"?

Image

"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?


Betelgeuse wrote:Almost never. That is how often you atheists show your "goodness" (ha, ha, ha, ha) and your decency, and your humanity.
It's the same with your lack of charity. It is documented in Who Really Cares.

Your unhappiness is also well-documented. You have no future. Nothing. Christians have hope. Christians can prosper by following Christ's teachings. Atheists have no standards, no laws. You form your own worldview of "goodness."
You are the consummate "good" of the universe.

You will never think "oh, the irony" in proclaiming your own "goodness" and "rationality" while you lampoon, attack, and spew venom, profane, ignorant venom, far and wide. It must make you very proud.

And now, I have nothing more to say to you, nothing more to read of yours. I suspect your life is about as unpleasant as Madeline Murray O'Hair made her own: "Won't somebody, somewhere LOVE ME!"

"Oh, the irony" of atheist "goodness," "rationality," and all things you profess.

More mindless regurgitation of apologetic dross. No content or thought.
I really do believe you must be from under a bridge somewhere.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 31088
Age: 31
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Creationists vs Flat Earthers

#55  Postby felltoearth » May 18, 2014 3:21 pm

Betelgeuse wrote:
Create some gravity waves for me, please.


OK, come closer.


A little closer...


a liiiiittle closer...


there. Gravity waves.


Now go the fuck away.
"Walla Walla Bonga!" — Witticism
User avatar
felltoearth
 
Posts: 14078
Age: 53

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Creationists vs Flat Earthers

#56  Postby Calilasseia » May 18, 2014 9:13 pm

Betelgeuse wrote:
Calilasseia wrote: What fantasies the founders thereof may have entertained, and what those subsequently attending those institutions devised during their research, are two entirely different subjects. Once again, I note with interest how, in something like 300 years of the existence of the Royal Society, the number of papers published thereby in the field of physics, that at some point says "oops, we can't explain this, therefore we need a magic man" is precisely zero.


Then we know everything do we?


Ah, putting words into my mouth that I never uttered. A classic feature of the supernaturalist aetiology. I'll remind you of the words of Dara O'Braian here:

Of course science doesn't know everything, because if it did, it would stop!


More succinctly, look up the meaning of the words "active research".

Betelgeuse wrote:Everything about dark matter, and dark energy?


Once again, look up the meaning of the words "active research".

Betelgeuse wrote:How about gravity?


Once again, look up the meaning of the words "active research".

Betelgeuse wrote:Create some gravity waves for me, please.


Er, masses generate gravity waves whenever they move. The problem is that for small masses, the magnitude of those waves is below our current limits of detection. Which is why we have to wait for extremely large masses to move, in order to stand a chance of detecting the resultant gravity waves. At the moment, the evidence for them is indirect, though of sufficient merit to result in Joseph Hooton Taylor being awarded the 1993 Nobel Prize for Physics for alighting thereupon. From the Wikipedia page devoted to him, we read the following:

Taylor immediately went to the National Radio Astronomy Observatory's telescopes in Green Bank, West Virginia, and participated in the discovery of the first pulsars discovered outside Cambridge. Since then, he has worked on all aspects of pulsar astrophysics. In 1974, Hulse and Taylor discovered the first pulsar in a binary system, named PSR B1913+16 after its position in the sky, during a survey for pulsars at the Arecibo Observatory in Puerto Rico. Although it was not understood at the time, this was also the first of what are now called recycled pulsars: neutron stars that have been spun-up to fast spin rates by the transfer of mass onto their surfaces from a companion star.

The orbit of this binary system is slowly shrinking as it loses energy because of emission of gravitational radiation, causing its orbital period to speed up slightly. The rate of shrinkage can be precisely predicted from Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, and over a thirty-year period Taylor and his colleagues have made measurements that match this prediction to much better than one percent accuracy. This was the first confirmation of the existence of gravitational radiation. There are now scores of binary pulsars known, and independent measurements have confirmed Taylor's results.

Taylor has used this first binary pulsar to make high-precision tests of general relativity. Working with his colleague Joel Weisberg, Taylor has used observations of this pulsar to demonstrated the existence of gravitational radiation in the amount and with the properties first predicted by Albert Einstein. He and Hulse shared the Nobel Prize for the discovery of this object. In 1980, he moved to Princeton University, where he was the James S. McDonnell Distinguished University Professor in Physics, having also served for six years as Dean of Faculty. He retired in 2006.


Sadly, NASA pulled out of funding the LISA project, so the launch date for the interferometer satellites proper has been set back by two decades. However, a proof of concept mission, LISA Pathfinder, is scheduled for launch in 2015. The Japanese Space Agency is planning to launch a similar system, named DECIGO, in 2027. Both LISA and DECIGO are being constructed in an attempt to provide direct measurements of gravitational waves, and determine if the results are in accord with the data from Taylor's measurements from binary pulsar systems.

You'll find an excellent exposition of the mathematics involved, arising directly from the Einstein Field Equations, here. Though this requires the reader to possess an understanding of tensor analysis.

Moving on ...

Betelgeuse wrote:The attempt to understand the truth, and explain it, excludes any formal recognition of a Creator.


There is so much that is not even competent enough to be declared "wrong" in the above.

First of all, scientists are interested in devising models that are in accord with observation. As a consequence, any asserted entities that are not observable are simply not within the remit of science. On the other hand, if those asserted entities are associated with observational consequences, then it is perfectly legitimate to demand a reliable and repeatable demonstration that those observational consequences are realised. Succeed in this with respect to your merely asserted "Creator", and you've won the Nobel Prize for Physics. Care to shoot for that accolade?

Unfortunately, every time I present this to a supernaturalist, the response consists of merely yet more apologetic fabrications, aimed at trying to avoid the relevant diligent labour. I'd like to see a supernaturalist step up to the plate with respect to that diligent labour, though I suspect the reason most won't dare do this, is because they're afraid that doing so might yield an answer that doesn't conform to their presuppositions. But that's the beauty of science: all that ultimately matters is accord with the data, regardless of any presuppositions one might hold. Indeed, I'm reminded here of the case of a scientist, as reported by Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion thusly [account to be found on pages 283 & 284 of my searchable electronic copy]:

It does happen. I have previously told the story of a respected elder statesman of the Zoology Department at Oxford when I was an undergraduate. For years he had passionately believed, and taught, that the Golgi Apparatus (a microscopic feature of the interior of cells) was not real: an artefact, an illusion. Every Monday afternoon it was the custom for the whole department to listen to a research talk by a visiting lecturer. One Monday, the visitor was an American cell biologist who presented completely convincing evidence that the Golgi Apparatus was real. At the end of the lecture, the old man strode to the front of the hall, shook the American by the hand and said - with passion - 'My dear fellow, I wish to thank you. I have been wrong these fifteen years.' We clapped our hands red.


Once again, this illustrates at work the principle I keep reminding you, and will keep reminding every supernaturalist about, namely, the utility value of treating ideas as disposable entities, and disposing of them when the data exhorts us to do so. Something that never happens in the world of religion. In short, what matters to scientists is not how elegant, how beautiful, how sophisticated or otherwise worthy of admiration an idea may be, but whether it is in accord with the data. The moment the data says "Begone!", scientists heed that call.

Now, my answer to the usual apologetics supernaturalists bring up, is quite simply this. If you think your asserted magic entity is real, provide genuine evidence for that entity. Do so and I, along with many others, will accept it happily. Since I and many others are aware of the formidable difficulties to be overcome in this regard, and the labour that will be required to succeed in that endeavour, any success will be regarded, by myself and others here, as all the more valiant an achievement. But, despite the truly stupendous accolades that will be bestowed upon whoever is successful in this endeavour, not one supernaturalist has offered to launch the project. Instead, supernaturalists content themselves with weak, vacuous apologetic fabrications, vainglorious attempts to talk their pet magic man into existence, frequently involving the use of duplicitous discoursive elisions along the way. This, despite the fact that genuine success in the endeavour I have described, will result in the individual responsible being hailed as a genius of the standing of Einstein. You might wish to ask yourself why so many of your fellow supernaturalists, far from champing at the bit to answer the question once and for all, and bring the debate to an end via this process, shrink away into the dark corners of assertionist apologetics.

Moving on ...

Betelgeuse wrote:Along this tortured route, mankind has not learned ultimate truth ("scientia") about the submicroscopic nor the supermacroscopic.


However, the two current extant theories are in accord with observation to 15 decimal places. Do you have a similar achievement from your mythology to offer?

Betelgeuse wrote:You may not think it bizarre, absolutely improbable, and even absurd that everything is so exceedingly complex, having created itself out of nothing more than a "quantum vacuum," but I do think it bizarre to the point of impossibility.


Fortunately for the world of science, physicists don't share your incredulity to the point of stifling research.

Betelgeuse wrote:Look up what Roger Penrose said about theologians waiting for centuries for science to catch up.


Oh dear. This would be the same Roger Penrose that is a member of the British Humanist Association, and a self-declared atheist?

I note with interest that searching several online quotations archives yields no quote emanating from Penrose, of the sort you've asserted to be the case above. I therefore request a valid citation.

Betelgeuse wrote:
Calilasseia wrote: Oh, you mean "arrogant pretensions" such as actually learning about a subject before pontificating thereupon? See my above exposition on the history of physics.


That fits in quite nicely with Einstein and his groupies the world over who rejected the Big Bang when Father Georges LeMaitre presented it to them.


Actually, the facts are somewhat more complex. Viz:

This proposal met with skepticism from his fellow scientists at the time. Eddington found Lemaître's notion unpleasant. Einstein found it suspect because he deemed it unjustifiable from a physical point of view. On the other hand, Einstein encouraged Lemaître to look into the possibility of models of non-isotropic expansion, so it is clear he was not altogether dismissive of the concept. He also appreciated Lemaître's argument that a static-Einstein model of the universe could not be sustained indefinitely into the past.

... in 1932 in Belgium, at the time of a cycle of conferences in Brussels and lastly in 1935 at Princeton—traveled together to the U.S. state of California for a series of seminars. After the Belgian detailed his theory, Einstein stood up, applauded, and is supposed to have said, "This is the most beautiful and satisfactory explanation of creation to which I have ever listened."[16] However there is disagreement over the reporting of this quote in the newspapers of the time, and it may be that Einstein was not actually referring to the theory as a whole but to Lemaître's proposal that cosmic rays may in fact be the leftover artifacts of the initial "explosion". Later research on cosmic rays by Robert Millikan would undercut this proposal, however.


In addition, we learn this:

Einstein was skeptical of this paper. When Lemaître approached Einstein at the 1927 Solvay Conference, the latter pointed out that Alexander Friedmann had proposed a similar solution to Einstein's equations in 1922, implying that the radius of the universe increased over time. (Einstein had also criticized Friedmann's calculations, but withdrew his comments.) In 1931, his annus mirabilis,[24] Lemaître published an article in Nature setting out his theory of the "primeval atom."

Friedmann was handicapped by living and working in the USSR, and died in 1925, soon after inventing the Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker metric. Because Lemaître spent his entire career in Europe, his scientific work is not as well known in the United States as that of Hubble or Einstein, both well known in the U.S. by virtue of residing there. Nevertheless, Lemaître's theory changed the course of cosmology. This was because Lemaître:

[1] Was well acquainted with the work of astronomers, and designed his theory to have testable implications and to be in accord with observations of the time, in particular to explain the observed redshift of galaxies and the linear relation between distances and velocities;

[2] Proposed his theory at an opportune time, since Edwin Hubble would soon publish his velocity-distance relation that strongly supported an expanding universe and, consequently, the Big Bang theory;

[3] Had studied under Arthur Eddington, who made sure that Lemaître got a hearing in the scientific community.

Both Friedmann and Lemaître proposed relativistic cosmologies featuring an expanding universe. However, Lemaître was the first to propose that the expansion explains the redshift of galaxies. He further concluded that an initial "creation-like" event must have occurred. In the 1980s, Alan Guth and Andrei Linde modified this theory by adding to it a period of inflation.

Einstein at first dismissed Friedmann, and then (privately) Lemaître, out of hand, saying that not all mathematics lead to correct theories. After Hubble's discovery was published, Einstein quickly and publicly endorsed Lemaître's theory, helping both the theory and its proposer get fast recognition.


Oh wait, what was that I said above about scientists changing their minds when the data exhorted them to? Looks like I have another example to add to the database. Not to mention another failed assertion on your part.

Betelgeuse wrote:Einstein and all those world class physicists were too pretentious and irrational to see reality.


Ha ha ha ha ha ha. See above. When the data supported Lemaitre, Einstein moved quickly to change his mind about Lemaitre's work, and swiftly gave it public endorsement. So much for your fatuous assertion above, an assertion made even more fatuous by the success of General Relativity, which Lemaitre applied to his own cosmological model.

What was that I said about learning the facts about a topic before pontificating thereupon?

Betelgeuse wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:Congratulations upon demonstrating the point I was making above so quickly. Rumraket's earlier observations on this slanderous assertion of yours render much subsequent comment superfluous to requirements, though I am tempted to point out at this juncture, that if anyone is to be accused of "narcissism", then this charge surely applies to people who think that they're "special" because an imaginary magic man purportedly fabricated an entire universe just for them. This is a level of hubris we simply don't possess.


I am outnumbered 100, 200, 300 to 1. Not one of you has uttered a word of condemnation against your pals who use four-letter profanities and epithets.


Red herring that doesn't address the issue I presented in my above quoted words. Care to try again?

Oh, and once again, please explain to me how the appearance of the word "fuck" in an exposition somehow negates the substantive content, with respect to the ideas being expounded? I've asked you this once before, and I'm still waiting for something resembling an answer.

Betelgeuse wrote:This is ignorant, irrational, and hateful.


Bullshit. Once again, do learn the elementary concept at work here. Namely, despite supernaturalist presuppositions to this effect, words don't have magic powers. It doesn't matter how often someone uses the word "fuck" in an exposition, if the ideas disseminated therein withstand critical scrutiny. Do learn this lesson, and desist from posting tiresome and irrelevant bleats, just because you don't like the style of discourse chosen by some of those examining your canards.

Betelgeuse wrote:You misunderstand everything about Christianity


Oh really? Please present an evidentially supported instance thereof. Or is even this small challenge too much for you?

Betelgeuse wrote:intentionally no doubt.


Oh look, it's veiled ad hominem time again, laced with a heavy dose of projection. A familiar aspect of the supernaturalist aetiology.

Once again, I'll educate you with respect to the process involved. Which consists of taking supernaturalist assertions at face value, as stated by said supernaturalists, then demonstrating that said assertions lead to paradox, error, or internal contradiction. You'll find this is a well-tested method in the world of mathematics, for example, where it comes under the heading of reductio ad absurdum. Now if you can't stand this particular level of discoursive heat, then the exit from the discoursive kitchen is that way.

Betelgeuse wrote:Jesus Christ was not "fabricated." He was a real person.


Oh wait, you'lll find an entire thread on this forum, devoted to the battle between historicists and mythicists with respect to this question, a thread which at the last count, ran to one thousand, seven hundred and ninety five pages. A thread in which numerous posters here argue strongly, that evidence for the existence of a human being fitting the role is sufficient to establish that there was a real human being named Jesus. What none of those posters accept, however, is the supernaturalist assertions about this individual. But of course, if you had bothered to do some elementary homework on this issue, you would have known this.

For the record, my position is simple. If there exists sufficient evidence pointing to the existence of the requisite human being, I shall readily accept that evidence. What I do not accept, however, is the grandiose and fantastic mythological assertions about this individual, many of which are wholly untestable.

Betelgeuse wrote:Countless witnesses saw Him and testified to what they saw.


You should be made aware at this point, that witness testimony is regarded in modern disciplines as extremely weak. Which is why effort is exerted to ensure corroboration of that testimony with hard data. Not least because an entire battery of psychological experiments has demonstrated the flaws that can readily arise within witness testimony. Here's an example video you can watch illustrating some of the key concepts:



Betelgeuse wrote:Christians believe our Creator made this universe for us.


Which takes me back to the issue I raised thus:

Congratulations upon demonstrating the point I was making above so quickly. Rumraket's earlier observations on this slanderous assertion of yours render much subsequent comment superfluous to requirements, though I am tempted to point out at this juncture, that if anyone is to be accused of "narcissism", then this charge surely applies to people who think that they're "special" because an imaginary magic man purportedly fabricated an entire universe just for them. This is a level of hubris we simply don't possess.


and which you failed to address, preferring instead to engage in a pointless diversion about some words being purportedly a sign of "ignorance" and "hate".

Betelgeuse wrote: You believe it made itself


Poppycock. Once again, there is so much in the above that fails to rise to the level of competence required to be declared wrong.

First of all, I don't bother with "belief" full stop. This is because, as supernaturalists keep demonstrating time and again, belief consists of nothing more than uncritical acceptance of unsupported assertions. I, on the other hand, prefer evidence. Which, when present, renders "belief" superfluous to requirements and irrelevant.

Second, I accept, courtesy of having read numerous peer reviewed papers on the subject, that the scientific search for testable natural processes underpinning the instantiation of the observable universe, is a valid search. Not least because that search has been so spectactularly successful in millions of other instances of investigation of entities and phenomena. Now, what should a rational person consider to be more likely to succeed - a process that has already succeeded in millions of instances, or treating mythological assertions as fact just because one's favourite mythology says so? Despite the fact that said mythology contains numerous assertions that are demonstrably wrong?

Betelgeuse wrote:but not even for us. Everything simply.... happened.


I've dealt with this fatuous caricature above. Learn the meaning of "testable natural processes", evidence for which is abundant with respect to vast classes of entities and phenomena.

Betelgeuse wrote:You possess so much hubris


HA HA HA HA HA HA!

I'm not the one who thinks he's "special" because a magic man decreed so.

Betelgeuse wrote:that you think of your "explanations" as the only ones possible


Poppycock. Read my above exposition with respect to my challenge to supernaturalists, to provide genuine evidence to support their assertions, and my comments about recognising success in this endeavour as a valiant achievement. Please explain to us all how this purportedly constitutes "hubris", or constitutes a purported exclusion of other explanations?

Betelgeuse wrote:and atheists overwhelmingly portray themselves as brilliant, rational, smart


I prefer to let the evidence do the talking. Trust me, it's so refreshing.

Betelgeuse wrote:and ridicule Christians with pathological hatred and intolerance...


Well we've seen plenty of this in your output. Pot, kettle, black much?

Betelgeuse wrote:for something you claim not even to believe in.


Once again, please stop misrepresenting exasperation at seeing grown adults clinging to bad ideas as "hatred" and "intolerance". Quite a bit of which we'be seen from some of your fellow supernaturalists. Such as Randall Terry, who openly spoke the words "hate is good" in public, and called for execution of those failing to conform to doctrine. That you presumably consider it "intolerant" to be concerned about this individual and his public proclamations, is chillingly revealing.

Betelgeuse wrote:What nonsense.


Much of your favourite mythology demonstrably is.

Betelgeuse wrote:
Betelgeuse wrote:What a pleasant bunch.


In the light of the above examination of your post, many here will be tempted to read this last sentence of yours and immediately think "oh, the irony".


How many times have you read "f***" in the posts of your little friends? No irony there. Only ignorant, spiteful childishness.


Yawn. Play another record, this one's broken.

Betelgeuse wrote:How many times have you and your little friends pretended to be brilliant, enlightened, and rational while failing even to write English correctly


Actually, some of the posters you're snidely accusing of this, are posters for whom English is a second language, and at least one or two others are medically diagnosed dyslexics. But then we're used to supernaturalists jumping to unwarranted conclusions here.

Betelgeuse wrote:spell words correctly


See above.

Betelgeuse wrote:be decent to a new visitor


The irony of you erecting this pathetic bleat, after accusing us of "hatred and intolerance" in your opening gambits, is not lost on us. Matthew 7:5, anyone?

Betelgeuse wrote:and at the very least, "give the devil his due"?


Ah, the usual pleading for privileges, whilst being unwilling to reciprocate. Another familiar part of the aetiology.

Betelgeuse wrote:Almost never. That is how often you atheists show your "goodness" (ha, ha, ha, ha) and your decency, and your humanity.


I'll let the evidence, not least from your own posts, stand as a refutation of this assertion.

Betelgeuse wrote:It's the same with your lack of charity. It is documented in Who Really Cares.


Yawn. If this is as robust as Paul Cameron's screeds, I don't think I'll bother.

Betelgeuse wrote:Your unhappiness is also well-documented.


HA HA HA HA HA HA!

Pull the other one, it's got bells on. I find things to rejoice in that you probably don't even know exist.

Betelgeuse wrote:You have no future. Nothing.


That Pew Research paper I presented to you in another thread says otherwise.

Betelgeuse wrote:Christians have hope. Christians can prosper by following Christ's teachings.


Oh we've seen how some Christians "prosper". People like Benny Hinn, bilking the rubes for millions.

Betelgeuse wrote:Atheists have no standards, no laws. You form your own worldview of "goodness."


Oh dear, it's this tiresome trope once more. Do I have to wave that list of supernaturalist rapists and serial killers under your nose again?

Betelgeuse wrote:You are the consummate "good" of the universe.


We don't possess that level of hubris. But then you've already been told this.

Betelgeuse wrote:You will never think "oh, the irony" in proclaiming your own "goodness" and "rationality" while you lampoon, attack, and spew venom, profane, ignorant venom, far and wide.


Whinge, whinge, whinge. Play another record, this one's not only broken, it's been reduced to its constituent quarks by your own blatant ad hominems.

Betelgeuse wrote:It must make you very proud.


We leave that to people who think they're "special".

Betelgeuse wrote:And now, I have nothing more to say to you, nothing more to read of yours.


Translation: "I have no substantive arguments to present".

Betelgeuse wrote:I suspect your life is about as unpleasant as Madeline Murray O'Hair made her own: "Won't somebody, somewhere LOVE ME!"


You really love your caricatures and presumptions, don't you?

Betelgeuse wrote:"Oh, the irony" of atheist "goodness," "rationality," and all things you profess.


Don't slam the door on the way out. The hinges have had to be renewed often.
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
User avatar
Calilasseia
RS Donator
 
Posts: 22091
Age: 59
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Creationists vs Flat Earthers

#57  Postby Oldskeptic » May 19, 2014 2:10 am

Betelgeuse wrote:
Look up what Roger Penrose said about theologians waiting for centuries for science to catch up.

Cali wrote:
Oh dear. This would be the same Roger Penrose that is a member of the British Humanist Association, and a self-declared atheist?

I note with interest that searching several online quotations archives yields no quote emanating from Penrose, of the sort you've asserted to be the case above. I therefore request a valid citation.


It wasn't Penrose it was Robert Jastrow.

Robert Jastrow (self-proclaimed agnostic): "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."
There is nothing so absurd that some philosopher will not say it - Cicero.

Traditionally these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead - Stephen Hawking
User avatar
Oldskeptic
 
Posts: 7395
Age: 64
Male

Print view this post

Re: Creationists vs Flat Earthers

#58  Postby Spearthrower » Jul 02, 2014 1:12 pm

Betelgeuse wrote:
Durro wrote:I wonder, what do Creationists think about Flat Earthers ?

///

What approach would you take to help educate these sorts of people ?



There is a planet full of ignorant people, and you profess concern over those who claim to believe in a flat earth?

There are far more Carl Sagan and Isaac Asimov worshippers than flat earthers. Who will try to convert the Sagan and Asimov blind followers, just as one example?

Sagan smiled while pocketing millions of dollars on commercial television, after he condemned commercial television in one of his books. Sagan preached his version of agnostic science, while besmirching Richard Nixon, and Ronald Reagan. But Sagan never had an unkind word to say about any of his fellow lefties.

Asimov was far more ignorant and biased than Sagan. He was so ignorant in fact that he feared flying and never rode in a commercial jet. Both of their books are replete with scientific ignorance and errors. Inexcusable. Too late to educate them or their sycophants, who will quickly rise to this occasion on their behalf.



Wow, this banned troll was really good at waving his hands around a lot, wasn't he?
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27990
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Creationists vs Flat Earthers

#59  Postby Spearthrower » Jul 02, 2014 1:16 pm

Jesus Christ was not "fabricated." He was a real person. Countless witnesses saw Him and testified to what they saw.


Yeah, well I saw Jesus last week and he told me he didn't exist, so that settles that, right? Whadoyoumean my testimony isn't as good as their testimony, or that my anecdote isn't equal to yours? Oh right, you can't.... and not just because you're banned, but because it was a fucking stupid position to maintain in the first place! ;)
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27990
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Creationists vs Flat Earthers

#60  Postby Spearthrower » Jul 02, 2014 1:17 pm

Betelgeuse wrote:
laklak wrote:Yeah, those ****ing ignorant asshats, Sagan and Asimov! Going on about Billions and Billions and space ships and stuff. Don't forget that other ignorant twat, Arthur C. Clarke, with his stupid idea for "communication satellites". LOL! How would those "satellites" stay up in the air, huh Mr. Smartypants Scientist? Huh? You ever throw a rock in the air? Know what happens? It falls DOWN, that's what! Dumb **** scientists.


Your ignorance is deep and wide.

1. Never mind spaceships, Isaac Asimov was too afraid of commercial jets to ride in one. What an intergalactic adventurer HE was.

2. Asimov was so enamored of himself that he ignored his own family. Asimov admitted that his typewriter was his best friend.
As a result of his miserable treatment of his family, Asimov's son was prosecuted for having child porn on his computer in Northern California some years ago. I think he would be a fine candidate for your group of "rational" (ha ha ha) skeptics.

3. With respect to your shallow remark on rocks, in one of Asimov's silly books, he claimed that if you threw a rock up in the air, it would continue on forever. I pointed out to the silly man his neglect of, oh, air resistance, for one.

4. "Sex was invented." - Carl Sagan
We should increase the cost of gasoline five cents a gallon to reduce its consumption. (paraphrased) - Carl Sagan
That remark came at a time when gasoline cost much less than a dollar a gallon. How much has the quadrupling of the cost of gasoline decreased consumption? Not as much as Sagan pretended a nickel would do. Nor did Sagan seem to care that such costs fall disproportionately on the poor. He was so rich, why should he have cared.

5. You brought up Arthur C. Clarke, I did not. What other brilliant remarks do you have to add to this profane and "intellectual" rant?



Wow! This guy is a special kind of stupid. Shame you went and broke him! :(
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27990
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Creationism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest