Mods/Admins: I have to apologize, but this person has finally shredded what little patience I had left for this Religious Absolutist Apologist.

Sun, 09/16/2018 - 18:25
Apollo (BTW: I have changed your name, keep reading...)

Apollo: "1. I'm not a "religious absolutist" so I have no idea what you are talking about when "they" insert God into some "gap". I didn't say the Big Bang theory was or wasn't an atheist theory. I think I said it was a contemporary scientific theory."

ALL of your posts definitively say your ARE a RELIGIOUS ABSOLUTIST. Additionally, you are the worst sort of Religious Absolutist, a Religious Absolutist Apologist. Your posts definitively say you are absolute in your religious beliefs and you are spewing the mind diarrhea and mental vomit of an apologist in failed attempt after failed attempt after failed attempt to force your beliefs onto others. Gander at My Fourth Commandment of Humanity:

4) You shall respect the right of ALL persons to believe whatsoever they wish to believe; even if contradictory to your beliefs. You may discuss beliefs; however, forcing your beliefs onto others is condemnable.

And before your stupid, dumb ass, retarded self says a word, I do "respect" your right to have whatsoever beliefs you may have. However, I do not have to respect your beliefs. Huge difference there Creatard. Furthermore, the only reason I am now additionally attacking you is because you have called me a liar by misquoting me and putting "your words" into my speech.

In actuality, my fourth commandment reads thusly:

4) You shall respect the right of ALL persons to believe whatsoever they wish to believe; even if contradictory to your beliefs. You may discuss beliefs; however, forcing your beliefs onto others is condemnable under penalty of death.

I usually drop the "under penalty of death" because most Religious Absolutists (such as you), especially the Apologist sub-species (such as you), find it a bit harsh and offensive. I am now following Stephen Fry's take on offending your sub-species, "You're offended? So the fuck what?"

And just to prove to you I do have a Ten Commandments of Humanity:

My Ten Commandments of Humanity

1. Question everything, trust nothing; for it is more important how to think than to be told what to think.
2. You shall mind your own business and responsibilities, and allow others to tend to theirs.
3. You shall render aid to others when needed, disregarding #2, as you shall want others to do for you. If your aid is refused, then do not force it.
4. You shall respect the right of ALL persons to believe whatsoever they wish to believe; even if contradictory to your beliefs. You may discuss beliefs; however, forcing your beliefs onto others is condemnable.
5. You shall live your own life always seeking to cause no harm.
6. You shall test everything; but you shall check your own ideas against the facts and evidence, and you shall always be ready to discard even a cherished belief if it does not conform to the facts and evidence.
7. You shall never overlook evil or shrink from administering justice; but you shall always be ready to forgive minor wrongdoing freely admitted and honestly regretted.
8. You shall treat ALL living things with love, honesty, respect, fidelity, and trust.
9. You shall never indoctrinate anyone, especially children, regardless of their situation; rather, teach them how to think, how to evaluate evidence, and how to disagree with you without disrespect and dishonor.
10. You shall value the future on a timescale longer than your own life span.

And as a bonus:

My Philosophy Of Life: The ONE and ONLY True Truth

Live and Let Live.

Leave me alone, I shall leave you alone.

Mess with me and mine… Just don’t… The results won’t be pretty.

Want to be friendly? We can be friends.

Want to be belligerent? We’ll probably be enemies.

Respect the Right of ALL persons to have whatever beliefs they wish to have, even if contradictory to your beliefs.

Wish to discuss beliefs? We can discuss them.

Do not force your beliefs onto others.

Force your beliefs onto me, we are enemies.

Mind your own business and affairs.

Allow others tend to theirs.

And always remember that you have not inherited the Earth from your ancestors; rather, you are borrowing it from your offspring.

Live and Let Live.

"He with long nose, tends to get it chopped off." — RF Runyan (me father)

So quit being a child and sticking your nose where it don't belong.

Apollo: "2. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/read-stephen-hawkings-final-theory-on-the-big-bang
there is a brief article about hawking's final theory on "the big Bang" there is no mention that the Big Bang theory is a "religious absolutist" theory where god gets inserted into some gap. Those scientists in that artice seem comfortable with there theory of a bang."

And you are so dense that really and truly it is like comparing an ingot of lead to a cloud as a neutron star is to your mind (got this from Tin-Man, thanks dude).

When did I ever say, "the Big Bang theory is a "religious absolutist" theory". I want you to directly blockquote where I said this AND link to the post. Otherwise, shut your god-damned lying mouth.

What I said was:

arakish: "I will point out where you are wrong. The Big Bang, and there was no "bang" or explosion as many Religious Absolutists call it, is when the Universe began its expansion phase. It is NOT the "beginning" of the Universe. There was a beginning before the Big Bang occurred. We do not know what this "beginning" was.
And this is where the Religious Absolutist Apologists insert "god" into that gap."

Se álla lógia — since we still do not know what the "beginning" of the universe was before the Big Bang Theory (a.k.a. Universal Expansion Theory), you Religious Absolutists, especially Apologists, insert your Sky Faerie in the "gap" of the "beginning" of the universe. Gads, you are so thick and dense...

If all you are going to do is misquote people and lie about what they say, get the fuck off my planet, preferably without a self-contained environmental apparatus.

Apollo: "3. Even so, science, as it continually seeks to understand God's work, God's creation, may have decided recently that the word "bang" is not accurate. If so, so what?"

Science ain't trying to understand "god's work." Science is seeking explanations to the natural world. Big difference there "he who possesses greatest object of density". I am going to start calling you BHB (Black Hole Brain) instead of Apollo. And it is actually you Religious Absolutist Apologists who play on the word "bang," not us people who actually possess intelligence and comprehension.

BHB: "4. According to you there was a beginning. That comports well with Christian belief that in the beginning God created the universe. If it was a bang, or not a bang, is a moot point."

"According to you there was a beginning." You fucking liar! This "beginning" is not according to me. It is according to other scientists out there. I am only repeating what they have said. You are the stupidest, dumbest, most retarded idiotic moron I have ever seen. You talk as if you have intelligence, yet you always prove you have none.

My hypothesis is that that universe has ALWAYS EXISTED. And here is something I know to be true for you to cogitate, WE SHALL NEVER KNOW HOW OLD THE UNIVERSE TRULY IS. There never has been any such thing as a "time" when there was "nothing." The universe is infinitely old. The only reason we say it is about 13.7 billion years old is due to the fact that as you work backwards from where the universe is now, it would be about 13.7 billion years when the universe existed in that hot, dense state known as the Infinite Singularity. What existed before the Universal Expansion began is still an "I do not know" answer. We have some fairly decent ideas and working models, but we have to rectify them.

BHB: "5. I am not about proving atheism wrong, or right. I am not about trying to prove God exists. These things are not provable, and are matters of faith. We can only see the universe from within it. Science can only see the universe from with in it. We can not get out side of it to describe it from the outside. So both theists, and atheist are in the same boat. We are in it, part of it, trying to understand it from our perspective."

"I am not about proving atheism wrong, or right." Oh yes you are. Simply by stating you believe in a "god," you are also trying to prove atheism wrong. You come here and say you believe in a "god," but I say, "I do not believe you. Show me the OBJECTIVE HARD EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE." And you cannot do so. Then you resort to your standard religious apologetics and beguiling dialectical semantic bullshit which is the standard indoctrination procedure of the tyrannical megalomaniacal psychotic sociopathic Religious Absolutists. The same group of sub-species of humans to which you belong. Then again, that last sentence probably used adjectives that are beyond your comprehension. Hell, the word "comprehension" is probably beyond your comprehension.

Here a couple of definitions for you to shat upon:

Religious Absolutist – anyone belonging to and possessing an inexorable belief in any religion and is truly applicable to any inexorable religious believers, especially the worst subset, Religious Absolutist Apologists.

Religious Absolutist Apologist – a dastardly subset of the Religious Absolutists who practices apologetics, which is the assumption of presupposed conclusions that have nothing to do with reason and rationality and the actual natural world, creating irrational excuses and whatever conflicting ideas justifying their baseless assumptions, regardless of what the true facts are, using beguiling dialectical semantics, distorted and perverted data, emotional whiney–ass pleas, due to an indoctrination conditioning that is so ingrained they never question the veracity of the nonsense they offer, or why they need to defend their faith at all.

Kai teliká, and I may have said this to you before...

What Absolutists Abdicate and Abandon For Their Faith
----------------------------------------------------------

Critical Thinking: The objective analysis and evaluation of an issue in order to form an objective judgment.

Analytical Thought: The abstract separation of a whole into its constituent parts in order to study the parts and their relations in a coherent and logical process.

Deductive Reasoning/Analysis: A process of reasoning from one or more statements or premises to reach a logically certain conclusion.

Rational Thought: Having reason or understanding to reflect on and to exercise the powers of judgment, conception, or inference in orderly ways or processes.

Logical Reasoning/Analysis: The process of using a rational, systematic series of steps based on sound procedures and given statements to arrive at an objective conclusion.

The above is what Absolutists abdicate and abandon. Let’s look at what they replace it with…

Faith: The practice of training one’s mind to ignore evidence, logic, and reason, while being able to believe in fairy tales, and being proud of it rather than ashamed. Your biblical definition for faith is just a cop-out for the true definition. Faith is the belief in anything that cannot be proven to exist.

And what I find most shameful is that some otherwise very intelligent people sacrifice that intelligence for their faith. Damnit, what the hell is wrong with you people? One of you could actually be the next Nobel Prize winner who discovers something so profound…

Thus, little child, go away. Adults are trying to have a conversation which does not involve misquoting and lying about what others say. Run along, little boy.

rmfr

Apollo " I have no idea what you are talking about when "they" insert God into some "gap"."

The concept, but not the exact wording, goes back to Henry Drummond, a 19th-century evangelist lecturer, from his Lowell Lectures on The Ascent of Man. Where he (Drummond) chastises those Christians who point to the things that science can not yet explain—"gaps which they will fill up with God"

The phrase was coined in TGD by Professor Dawkins, and if you had read it then you could not fail to know what the phrase meant. As I have said, I don't believe you have read TGD at all, and paraphrasing criticisms of it you have read. This is a very popular and dishonest tactic amongst religious apologists.

"Even so, science (dishonest begging the question fallacy removed) may have decided recently that the word "bang" is not accurate. If so, so what?"

The phrase big bang was coined initially by detractors of the theory to disparage it, nothing about the scientific theory ever involved a bang or an explosion of any kind, You really don't have the first clue do you, and dropping Stephen Hawking's name into your post won't fool anyone.

"According to you there was a beginning. That comports well with Christian belief that in the beginning God created the universe. If it was a bang, or not a bang, is a moot point."

Not really, as time itself didn't exist prior to the big bang, so it's something of a misnomer to call it a beginning, rather it is a point of origin and our ability to conceptualise here is deeply flawed as we have no point of reference. However it is axiomatic . that nothing in the big bang theory evidences the existence of any deity or anything supernatural.

"I am not about proving atheism wrong, or right."

You can' prove it wrong or right, as atheism is just the ;lack or absence of a belief. The best you could do is demonstrate some evidence of r a deity, and so far you have failed, producing the usually cliched apologetic with ubiquitous common logical fallacies.

"These things are not provable, and are matters of faith. "

Faith is useless for validating claims or beliefs, because you can quite demonstrably believe literally anything using faith.

"We can only see the universe from within it. Science can only see the universe from with in it. "

Wow, wrong yet again, we can view residual effects of the big bang, such as background radiation. There really is no topic on which you can't make a spurious claim is there. (rhetorical)

"We can not get out side of it to describe it from the outside. So both theists, and atheist are in the same boat."

Except its theism and not atheism that is making unevidenced claims here. I am happy to accept the fact that the evidence shows only natural material phenomena, you on the other hand are not and keep making irrational and unevidenced claims.