Do Most Atheists Know that science..... Part 2

[Dave_46]

God is an eternal Spirit according to mainline Christianity (although this is not true in the Mormon faith). God being an eternal Spirit can dwell in the universe but not in any way be subjected to or influenced by time. (Unless He chose to for some reason)

Interesting. Please, how do you know this?

Dave

 

[Foster Zygote]

Bring in some excerpts. I curious why no one will bring in any excerpts. Are they worried about it being scrutinized.

Yeah DOC, fear of having its contents revealed is exactly why you are being challenged to read it.

 

[Foster Zygote]

The bible is the one that says God is eternal:

Deut. 33: 27, Ps. 90: 2, Ps. 93: 2, Ps. 102: 27, Ps. 146: 10, Isa. 57: 15, Isa. 63:16, Mal. 3: 6, Rom. 1: 20, 1 Tim. 1: 17, Heb. 13: 8, Rev. 22: 13

Ah yes, the Bible says it's true. And we know that the Bible is itself true because it says so right in the Bible. I know we've been over this in the past (well others have, you avoided participation in the discussion of the subject), but many other religious texts make the same claim to truth that the Bible does. Why should we accept the Bible as a reliable source of truth but reject the others?

 

[jond]

And that is the problem, DOC. You are at a sceptics board. You have been here long enough to know that the person who makes a claim shoulders the burden of proof. That is how this game is played.

What you have really done is make a claim which is in the form "Most atheists do not know that science says all the galaxies come from something smaller than a pea". That is a claim which is quite easy to evidence, and Mashuna has pointed that out in a very witty post - witty and profoundly relevant. Other bits of evidence have been kindly provided by other posters ( even though they have no need to provide it, since the claim is yours). Thus Seismosaurus has explained this is taught in schools; and most of the atheists in this thread ( an admittedly small and self- selecting sample) have explained they do know it. So the evidence we do have is against you and it is now up to you to do the work: make a survey or find a survey which asks the question. There is nothing to prevent you doing this, and although it would be time consuming, and you might have to learn a fair bit about designing such studies, even a flawed bit of research would give us something to discuss. It is clear from the time you have spent on these two threads that you do have the time (nothwithstanding your busy life).

But you did not do this. Not about big bang and not about abiogenesis. In this thread you avoided the issue by posing your statement as a question. This has not fooled anyone. Arthwollipot has stated it most clearly but everyone else has recognised your ploy to some extent and has called it implicitly or explicitly.

You have now made it plain that you do not accept the affirmative answer and you are not interested in the evidence which supports that affirmative answer. Nor are you interested in research which would challenge that answer.

This is not about physics. I have already said I do not have the background to understand the physics, and I think randfan has admitted as much too. But it is clear there are those here who do have that understanding and they have spent their time and effort to help you to get it as well. You are not interested. That effort is not wasted because once again I have learned a little and I am sure many others have too. But you have not

While the physics is hard, and, as Hokulele has pointed out, the layman's usual mode of approach to new problems does not serve us very well in these fields ( visualisation and analogy tend to break down as tools in this area, for example); market research is a lot simpler and you have no excuse for not getting the basic idea in that field.

I suggest you accept the rules of the game, DOC. Go and find some evidence in support of your claim, then come back to us. I will be interested in the results, as I have said. I think others will as well. If you find that people do know this, and it does not affect their atheism, you will have learned something about the diversity of people. That is genuinely interesting if you happen to have that cast of mind. If your survey is sophisticated enough you might be able to test your second hypothesis (that this will make a difference to atheists' beliefs) too: or you can make a second bit of research to look at that one. There is a lot of scope here. Why not do something about it, instead of hanging on to your opinion in face of what evidence we do have. You might even enjoy it!

Odd that DOC seems to have missed this one. Maybe because he'd have to do something to back up his beliefs and assertions? Surprise, surprise.

Not that this is a poll, but I too am sadly undereducated in the fields of physics and biology. Nevertheless, when presented with the information that "science says" about the universe and the origins of life (who is this science dude, anyway?) I was most assuredly NOT inclined to start believing in a supreme being. (Though I thought the one in Time Bandits was pretty cool.) But, no DOC, it wasn't you who told me.

 

[wahrheit]

Odd that DOC seems to have missed this one.

That's not the only post he "missed". He thinks that by ignoring certain things, they will go away over time, and nobody would notice.

 

[EventHorizon]

The bible is the one that says God is eternal:

Deut. 33: 27, Ps. 90: 2, Ps. 93: 2, Ps. 102: 27, Ps. 146: 10, Isa. 57: 15, Isa. 63:16, Mal. 3: 6, Rom. 1: 20, 1 Tim. 1: 17, Heb. 13: 8, Rev. 22: 13

On page 130 (in the copy I own) of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory it says that breakfast cereals are made of pencil shavings. I didn't think it was true, but it's in a book, so it must be true.

 

[godless dave]

Ok, so we have several people saying or implying that mainline science is theorizing that all of the matter (or physical material) of the 10 billion trillion stars in the known universe came from something smaller than an atom. My question is what percentage of atheists in the world do you estimate do not know this fact?

Less than 1%, since this knowledge is readily available. You would have had to have dropped out of school around age 12 and gone to live in a cave to not be aware of this theory.

And also do you believe that if an atheist did not know the above information, and then found out about it, do you believe this would in any way effect his feelings about science or his feelings about a possible God?

Nope. It sure didn't effect mine.

 

[FireGarden]

Bring in some excerpts.

Just to remind you that I posted a link to an excerpt in post 253. You've since posted, but not noted that.

 

[wahrheit]

Just to remind you that I posted a link to an excerpt in post 253. You've since posted, but not noted that.

That's not the only post he "missed". He thinks that by ignoring certain things, they will go away over time, and nobody would notice.

Well...

 

[DOC]

I beleive DOC's reluctance is linked to a tit-for-tat situation. In the other thread regarding evolution, DOC claimed how Norman Geisler, "one of the World's great apologist's" made arguments against atheism that were concrete. Everyone demanded that DOC present the arguments here instead of demanding by proxy. As such, DOC is doing the same thing here.


So, the form of the argument is the same, the substance is different.

Differences include:
1.) theist apologetics isn't evidence based and it is not independantly verifiable.
2.) I went to the amazon text and found blatant illogical statements (E.g., sasyiny university is derived from a contraction of unity and diversit) that made me distrust the honesty of the text.

Actually Norman Geisler's clear description of the concept of the big bang in his book "I Don't Have the Faith to be an Atheist" was the reason I understood you were wrong when you said the definition of big bang singularity was infinite mass with zero volume.

Since you brought it up again, I will say again it is illogical, to put down the author of 60 books because of something his "co-author" said about a word origin. You sound worried about Geisler and you should be.

And with regard to the word university what does uni mean in Latin and what does versus mean in Latin. I still don't think you're going back far enough. But if he was wrong, which I"m still not convinced he was, blame it on his co author, not Geisler. And your description above of what his co author stated has 3 errors in it.

 

[Nogbad]

That the big bang required a small but super dense trigger point does not seem to me to be much of a problem. It does beg the question of what went on before the bang but that is a separate matter. Many bangs and contractions? Many universes with infinite regression? I don't think anyone is claiming the big bang is the complete picture.

To complain about the size of the super dense material at kick off seems a bit odd if one wishes to replace it with a universe made out of nothing. (If it was created out of something then where did the something come from to make it?)

 

[DOC]

That's not the only post he "missed". He thinks that by ignoring certain things, they will go away over time, and nobody would notice.

As I said before, I don't have the time to get to all the many posts, if I don't respond to a post, I don't respond to it. I'm greatly outnumbered in here in case you haven't noticed yet.

 

[Hokulele]

As I said before, I don't have the time to get to all the many posts, if I don't respond to a post, I don't respond to it. I'm greatly outnumbered in here in case you haven't noticed yet.

And the ones you choose to respond to, as well as the ones you choose not to respond to, speak volumes regarding your willingness to discuss and learn anything about the topic you introduced in the OP.

 

[arthwollipot]

And with regard to the word university what does uni mean in Latin and what does versus mean in Latin.

Well, "uni" is derived from the latin "unus", which means "one", and "versus" is the latin past participle of the verb "vertere", which means "to turn". The literal translation of the word is "turned into one". According to the Online Etymology Dictionary, it is probably a loan-translation from the Greek term to holon, which is a noun version of holos, or "whole".

No, there's nothing about spoken words in the Latin origin of the words "universe" or "university".

 

[joobz]

Actually Norman Geisler's clear description of the concept of the big bang in his book "I Don't Have the Faith to be an Atheist" was the reason I understood you were wrong when you said the definition of big bang singularity was infinite mass with zero volume.

There is no evidence that you knew what my error was. Nor is there evidence that you had any concept to what "natural forces/natural laws" were in reference to big bang theory. My error is not the same as you being right. This is highlighted by the fact that you have failed to address why you think my description mattered to my initial question.

Since you brought it up again, I will say again it is illogical, to put down the author of 60 books because of something his "co-author" said about a word origin.

irrelevant the overt mistake is in his book. Hardly the kind of thing that a "great apologist" would allow to happen.

You sound worried about Geisler and you should be.

Not in the slightest.

And with regard to the word university what does uni mean in Latin and what does versus mean in Latin. I still don't think you're going back far enough.

Nope. I went back to the origin of the word, university.

 

[joobz]

As I said before, I don't have the time to get to all the many posts, if I don't respond to a post, I don't respond to it. I'm greatly outnumbered in here in case you haven't noticed yet.

And the ones you choose to respond to, as well as the ones you choose not to respond to, speak volumes regarding your willingness to discuss and learn anything about the topic you introduced in the OP.

Well, if DOC wishes to prove you wrong, he should be willing to explain why my definition of singularity mattered in terms of the question I asked.


I still contend that the big bang does not describe the beginning of the universe in the same way that "god created the universe" means.
If anything, saying the bb (or the moment before the bb) is the beginning of the universe is identical to saying that the front bumper is the beginning of the car.

 

[DOC]

I totally believe your point now, it makes perfect sense!

You see, even though the people in this thread are the "evil scientist fringe" they come armed with the brutal facts...

So are some Christians armed with facts. Christ was an historical figure. The tomb is empty. Peter died in Rome. Christ said upon this rock {Peter} I will build my church. The vatican is likely built on his grave. The bible is the best selling book of all time. Hundreds of thousands of changed lives. Our calender is based on the birth of Christ. Jefferson said the morals and ethics of Christ are the best he's ever seen. Scientists have learned there was a definite beginning to time, space, and matter, which is similar to Genesis. etc. etc.

 

[joobz]

So are some Christians armed with facts. Christ was an historical figure. The tomb is empty. Peter died in Rome. Christ said upon this rock {Peter} I will build my church. The vatican is likely built on his grave. The bible is the best selling book of all time. Hundreds of thousands of changed lives. Our calender is based on the birth of Christ. Jefferson said the morals and ethics of Christ are the best he's ever seen. Scientists have learned there was a definite beginning to time, space, and matter, which is similar to Genesis. etc. etc.

excellent! You just proved my OP in the "DOC's proof of christianity through irrelevant fact attrition."

 

[Fredrik]

As I said before, I don't have the time to get to all the many posts, if I don't respond to a post, I don't respond to it.

You only have time to write ten lines of text each day?! That's obviously BS. You're avoiding all the questions that ask you to explain what your point is because you know you don't have a point.

The bible is the best selling book of all time.

How is that relevant?

Hundreds of thousands of changed lives.

It must be more than that, but how is it relevant?

The number of people who were killed because of this ridiculous religion is probably greater than that.

Our calender is based on the birth of Christ.

How is that relevant?

Jefferson said the morals and ethics of Christ are the best he's ever seen.

So? That suggests that he was a moron, but it's also possible that he just said something dumb without thinking. I'm sure we've all done that.

Scientists have learned there was a definite beginning to time, space, and matter, which is similar to Genesis. etc. etc.

So the bible got one thing right. (Well, close enough anyway). Why do you think this is relevant when the bible contradicts science on so many other things, and even contradicts itself?

 

[Mark Felt]

So are some Christians armed with facts.

Irrelevant.

Christ was an historical figure.

Debatable, as far as I'm aware he doesn't exist outside of the bible in a history until roughly 50-70 AD, and then as a footnote.

The tomb is empty.

If he never existed, of course it is.

Peter died in Rome.

Elvis Prezley died of a heart attack for our sins?

Christ said upon this rock {Peter} I will build my church. The vatican is likely built on his grave.

You don't think that, perhaps, the church might have shown more respect to one of the apostles than to build a fricking huge building on top of his place of rest?

The bible is the best selling book of all time.

No, that's Harry Potter.

Hundreds of thousands of changed lives.

No, that's Scientology.

Our calender is based on the birth of Christ.

No, it's not.

Jefferson said the morals and ethics of Christ are the best he's ever seen.

Jesus was fine with slavery.

Scientists have learned there was a definite beginning to time, space, and matter, which is similar to Genesis. etc. etc.

If you get the right answer for the wrong reasons, you were lucky, not correct.