Who Made God?

[michael2507]

[quote]steveo5801 wrote:

…always existed: so you are making the creation (the universe) itself God.
[/quote]
If you don’t assume a God, why would there be a need for the concept of creation?

[quote]
We humans almost invariably have to believe that something created everything. We search for a god of our own imagination if we reject the God of the Bible…[/quote]

I’d rather say many humans want to believe that something created everything. This whole line of thinking is one but not the only option.

The point I’m trying to make:

I see no proof or necessity for the existence of one or more deities. Rather, I see a possibility and systems of belief founded upon it.

I agree with regard to the human mind not being able to grasp infinity, an infinite and transcendent God, and related concepts. This is just as little proof for the existence of God as it is against it, though.

[1_packlondoner]

Zeb,

Okay, you want to turn away from the issues and turn it into arguing about semantics. I’ve been polite all the way through this. Saying ‘grow up’ is not being insulting.

Why on Earth would I read polls about who votes for someone in a foreign country? I can barely bring myself to read up on what’s happening here in politics. My point was not disputing the facts you mentioned, but rather saying they have absolutely zero impact on what someone from several thousand miles away thinks about morality.

As always your fondness for pedantry overpowers your capacity for reasoning and logic. I persevered… Turned the other cheek even (lol) because I figured once we got past that we could actually debate these issues that were subsequently raised. I see now that is a fallacy on my part.

It is not an assumption that you quote scripture and add nothing to it - ergo you make people think that should be enough. Not an assumption. An assertion.

Ultimately I think I’ve pretty much given you every opportunity to respond in a polite manner and other than to ask you not to do it, I have not reacted angrily to your constant attempts to a) put words in my mouth and b)feed what I can only describe as a persecution complex and c) wind me up.

I don’t hate you. I don’t dislike you. If anything I am indifferent to you, until you chose to respond to a comment of mine about the nature of morality by calling me a lefty and politically correct. You have never subbstantiated how one has something to do with the other and have instead proceeded to rant about how I must think this or that about you.

You keep saying that because I assert one thing about my beliefs that I therefore must feel this or that way about you. Sorry pal. Not true. My only opinions of you are born from our correspondance.

Never called you racist or homophobic but you certianly judged me as an atheist and lumped me in with ‘all the others’. If I did that I could put you and Hitler in the same box as Christians. Once again your capacity for pedantry seized on the most superficial aspect of what I said and totally missed the truth of it. I’ve really tried with you but plain and simple, all you want is an argument.

Oh, wait one more thing… Do you not fear God? Never said you were a coward but much of what you have said has to do with what will happen to you if you don’t believe in and follow a, b and c. Is that not behaving a certain way out of fear? Never said it was cowardly - those were your words not mine - but if you choose to do something because the consequences of not doing it would be horrific, then that IS fear. Not that fear is always bad. Wow, this pedantry thing is contagious.

[Electric_E]

[quote]Professor X wrote:
electric_eales wrote:
Professor X wrote:
electric_eales wrote:

How can god have always have exsisted? if the universe needs a creator then so does god

How do you figure? I explained one concept that I happen to believe is a possibility. Time doesn’t even exist in black holes so how can you claim that an entity that created this universe must adhere to the rules of time as far as needing a beginning and an end?

So what you are saying is that something (in this case god) can come from nothing?
Well then it should be plausible that the universe was always there and does not need a creator. It is good that you use black holes as an example, although it has not been proven that time does not exist in black holes and that this is merely a theory, if this theory (which in my opinion is quite solid) is true then maybe if there has to be a creator then the creator of our universe could simply be one solitary black hole that is not governed by the laws of time and space.

What was the point of your post? You are basically writing that you agree with me but now want to argue about what to call God. That’s stupid. You’ve lost ground. Quit typing.
[/quote]

I am not fighting ‘for ground’ here prof, and every post does not have to be an argument or disagrement, you appear to have issues that involve agression and having to disagree and argue with almost anyone and anything.

[Professor_X]

[quote]electric_eales wrote:

I am not fighting ‘for ground’ here prof, and every post does not have to be an argument or disagrement, you appear to have issues that involve agression and having to disagree and argue with almost anyone and anything.
[/quote]

I am very competitive. You should know this by now. I doubt that will be changing any time soon.

[ZEB]

[quote]1-packlondoner wrote:
Zeb,

Saying ‘grow up’ is not being insulting.[/quote]

It’s not?

Is it complimentary?

Is it also complimentary to insinuate that Christianity is a religion based upon fear?

Why on Earth would I read polls about who votes for someone in a foreign country?

Because you want to stay informed and you want to know why people in America voted for the leader of the free world.

Right?

I can barely bring myself to read up on what’s happening here in politics. My point was not disputing the facts you mentioned, but rather saying they have absolutely zero impact on what someone from several thousand miles away thinks about morality.

But that was not the question…remember?

As always your fondness for pedantry overpowers your capacity for reasoning and logic. I persevered… Turned the other cheek even (lol) because I figured once we got past that we could actually debate these issues that were subsequently raised. I see now that is a fallacy on my part.

Well hopefully you’ll learn by your mistake.

I said you would insult me and or my relgion and you didn’t let me down.

So…I’ll learn by my mistakes too.

[quote]It is not an assumption that you quote scripture and add nothing to it - ergo you make people think that should be enough. Not an assumption. An assertion.

Ultimately I think I’ve pretty much given you every opportunity to respond in a polite manner and other than to ask you not to do it, I have not reacted angrily to your constant attempts to a) put words in my mouth and b)feed what I can only describe as a persecution complex and c) wind me up.[/quote]

Thank you, I will add the “persecution complex” to the other two personal attacks.

And once again…I said you would do this and you did.

I don’t hate you. I don’t dislike you. If anything I am indifferent to you,

Indifference is suppose to be even worse than the other two.

No?

until you chose to respond to a comment of mine about the nature of morality by calling me a lefty and politically correct.

And I am proud to say that I was correct on both counts!

Not bad huh?

You have never subbstantiated how one has something to do with the other…

Sure I did you just don’t agree. If you remember right I called that one right too. I said no gold star I then proceeded to nail it.

And you proceeded to disagree with me.

I called it again…

You keep saying that because I assert one thing about my beliefs that I therefore must feel this or that way about you. Sorry pal. Not true. My only opinions of you are born from our correspondance.

And any correspondance between someone from your “background” and my own background would pretty much end like this…on a message board.

I called that too…

In person it would be different.

Never called you racist or homophobic

Here is what I said:

Now you assume that I am a sexist, racist and other “fine” things.

And I said that because you said this:

I judge eveyrone I come into contact with on their own merits regardless of race, gender, nationality, sexuality or religion. It might be an idea if you began to do the same thing."

You see that last sentence that I highlighted implies that I in fact judge people based upon their gender, race etc.

That means that you “assumed” that I am in fact a racist, sexist etc. Hence, I was correct in calling you on it.

How many is that I was right about? I lost count.

but you certianly judged me as an atheist and lumped me in with ‘all the others’.

And I was right…AGAIN!

If I did that I could put you and Hitler in the same box as Christians.

Now you’re talking!

Go man …go!

Put downs and insults…I love it.

Once again your capacity for pedantry seized on the most superficial aspect of what I said

You think my capacity for pedantry is large…You should see me eat.

I’ve really tried with you but plain and simple, all you want is an argument.

You tried what?

You tried to frame your brand of lefty political correctness and I wouldn’t let you do it.

[quote]Oh, wait one more thing… Do you not fear God? Never said you were a coward but much of what you have said has to do with what will happen to you if you don’t believe in and follow a, b and c. Is that not behaving a certain way out of fear? Never said it was cowardly - those were your words not mine - but if you choose to do something because the consequences of not doing it would be horrific, then that IS fear. Not that fear is always bad. Wow, this pedantry thing is contagious.
[/quote]

You free thinking politically correct lefty atheists are all the same (how’s that for lumping…I’m good huh?)

You are a funny guy.

In the beginning you chastised me for “typing” you without “knowing” you. And then you proceeded to fall right in to line with my original prediction.

Let’s see we know for sure that:

1. You are an independent thinker.

2. You do not agree with or believe in the Bible and are an atheist.

3. You are a bright person.

Now what was that little thing I wrote when you first responded to me:

“I’m and independent thinker…I make my OWN decsions…Bible? GRRRR…(bristle bristle). Big important thinking men like me don’t need that outdated document. I can decide what’s right and wrong independently…I read and am very very educated…And I like philosophy.”

This being right all the time about you…it’s boring.

Oh and there must be something wrong with my PM as I never got your question about Jesus Christ.

Yep…I called that one too.

I really hate smiley faces but there is no other way that I can express my happiness that we had a chance to “share” our beliefs with each other.

Would you please join me in a chorus of “We Are The World?”

[1_packlondoner]

You really are an oversensitive little man. I’m done with you now.

This line by line comeback thing of yours is getting very tiresome and you only seem to deal with binary oppositions. Something is either complimentary or it’s insulting.

Something is lefty or to the right.

Once again, show me where I insulted your religion. Not where I asserted my beliefs, but where I insulted your religion.

As for you personally, calling you a cunt would be insulting. Suggesting you have issues not dissimilar to a persecution complex is a concern. Until you can make that distinction we may as well draw this fun little dialogue to a close.

When you’ve still not managed to make any sense of your original dig at me, I’m hardly going to PM you and ask you to write something so important as why and how Jesus’ death saved all our souls.

Anyway, why not write it for all to see on this board? I’m sure I’m not the only atheist who would love to hear your views on that particular topic. I’m starting to think your knowledge of that which you champion is as limited as your ability to react peacibly to anyone asking polite questions about your faith.

You have done nothing but be disrespectful, attempt to goad me and whilst I kept on giving you the benefit of the doubt you have not actually replied with anything of note other than veiled insults and digs. Well I’m bored of that now as you don’t even seem to have anything to bring to the debate aside from the digs.

You are a cretin. Indifference is not caring either way, which I didn’t before you responded to me. What part of that did you not quite grasp?

‘And any correspondance between someone from your “background” and my own background would pretty much end like this…on a message board.’

Your choice that one. For myself, I really tried. I’ve discussed similar issues with others many times and not had any problems with people on this forum.

In person it would be different.

Absolutely it would because you are nowhere near sharp enough to have an argument like this with me in person. I fear I would either a) end up cutting you down in a hail of verbal abuse or b) feel sorry because I was obviously talking with the special kid who couldn’t grasp simple concepts and took everything way too personally.

To paraphrase Tupac - Shit, you ain’t even on my level.

Here is what I said:

Now you assume that I am a sexist, racist and other “fine” things.

And I said that because you said this:

I judge eveyrone I come into contact with on their own merits regardless of race, gender, nationality, sexuality or religion. It might be an idea if you began to do the same thing."

You see that last sentence that I highlighted implies that I in fact judge people based upon their gender, race etc.

That means that you “assumed” that I am in fact a racist, sexist etc. Hence, I was correct in calling you on it.

No, you read into it what you wanted to because you are a pedant and like to argue semantics rather than issues. I said I judge everyone on their own merits regardless of any of those things, maybe you should do the same. Well you most certainly don’t judge every atheist on their own merits as I have discovered so I stand by it.

For the record what ARE your views on blacks, jews, gays and muslims?

Anyway… Looking forward to being abusive and non-PC from now on in.

[system]

[quote]ZEB wrote:
I don’t think you ever ridiculed me. And to be fair I did say “just about every atheist” right?

However, you have ridiculed other Christians.[/quote]

I just wanted to jump in and point out that I hadn’t…in fact I don’t see a whole lot of atheists ridiculing you. The ones that do tend to ridicule anyone about anything. That’s their particular argument style I suppose.

To my knowledge on this board I have ridiculed one Christian. He deserves it, and I tend to jab at the particular argument and not directly at him (though I admit calling an argument stupid kind of implies the stupidity of the person making it).

[quote]And…you and I did just do this whole “there is no God prove it bla bla bla…” thing not long ago.

You really want to repeat it?[/quote]

Not anywhere near the same argument here. I asked how it takes faith for me not to believe something. This has nothing to do with whether there is or isn’t a god. It has to do with you basically trying to turn atheism into a religion of some kind by claiming that it takes faith.

It does not take faith to reject a claim.

[Professor_X]

[quote]Mordred wrote:

It does not take faith to reject a claim.[/quote]

Actually, it does. If no faith was involved at all, it would make you agnostic and open to many possibilities. Atheism is the BELIEF that there absolutely is no God for sure. That takes faith. It takes faith to say with absolute conviction that you understand our reality to be one way…absent of a higher power and that there is no way one could exist.

[Electric_E]

[quote]Professor X wrote:
electric_eales wrote:

I am not fighting ‘for ground’ here prof, and every post does not have to be an argument or disagrement, you appear to have issues that involve agression and having to disagree and argue with almost anyone and anything.

I am very competitive. You should know this by now. I doubt that will be changing any time soon.[/quote]

IMO more arguementative than competative, but ehatever rocks your dinghy dude I don’t judge you for it

[1_packlondoner]

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Mordred wrote:

It does not take faith to reject a claim.

Actually, it does. If no faith was involved at all, it would make you agnostic and open to many possibilities. Atheism is the BELIEF that there absolutely is no God for sure. That takes faith. It takes faith to say with absolute conviction that you understand our reality to be one way…absent of a higher power and that there is no way one could exist.[/quote]

Atheism is the absence of theism - which is the belief in the existence of a deity.

It only takes faith to be atheist in the same sense that I believe or ‘have faith’ my laptop won’t suddenley sprout wings and fly off when my back is turned.

EDIT: But I can do without another argument on this thread so I’ll keep out of that one from now on.

[Majin]

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Mordred wrote:

It does not take faith to reject a claim.

Actually, it does. If no faith was involved at all, it would make you agnostic and open to many possibilities. Atheism is the BELIEF that there absolutely is no God for sure. That takes faith. It takes faith to say with absolute conviction that you understand our reality to be one way…absent of a higher power and that there is no way one could exist.[/quote]

I would say atheism is the certainty that no ‘religion-esque’ God exists. As in a dude who created us and watches over us(which is what 95% of religions propose). I sometimes say I’m an atheist, but that’s only in reference to the plethora of man-made beliefs and religions. Beyond those outlines I have no trouble just saying ‘I don’t know’. I see people having a hard time doing this and hiding behind beliefs instead. The last thing I want to be is associated with some teenager who ‘hates God’ because he/she is angry at dad or whatnot.

Anyway, to end the rant, atheism doesn’t mean that there’s nothing out there. It’s just a conclusion that all religions are man-invented, an antithesis to them and not everything else that may exist.

[system]

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Mordred wrote:

It does not take faith to reject a claim.

Actually, it does. If no faith was involved at all, it would make you agnostic and open to many possibilities. Atheism is the BELIEF that there absolutely is no God for sure. That takes faith. It takes faith to say with absolute conviction that you understand our reality to be one way…absent of a higher power and that there is no way one could exist.[/quote]

This is the way that you define atheism. This has not been the way that atheist writers and thinkers have ever defined it.

“Etymologically, as well as philosophically, an ATheist is one without God. That is all the ‘A’ before ‘Theist’ really means.” -G.W. Foote

“[T]he Oracle pursued a logical course of confuting theism, and leaving “a-theism” the negative result. It did not, in the absurd terms of common religious propaganda, “deny the existence of God.” It affirmed that God was a term for an existence imagined by man in terms of his own personality and irreducible to any tenable definition. It did not even affirm that “there are no Gods”; it insisted that the onus of proof as to any God lay with the theist, who could give none compatible with his definitions.” -J.M. Robertson remarking on the negative atheism of Charles Southwell, who, in 1842, founded the Oracle of Reason, England’s first avowedly atheistic periodical

The original meaning of agnosticism was the belief that it is impossible to know whether or not there is a god. It doesn’t mean that you are not sure if there is or isn’t a god. It has come to mean this through popular usage because there are a lot of people, who should rightly be labled atheists, that don’t like to call themselves atheists. Some people apparently gave the word a negative connotation by explicitly linking it to evil, devil worship, Communism, Nazism, and pretty much anything that was bad. This has caused a lot of people to start using words like agnostic, non-theist, etc…

I think this is silly. I’m an atheist. I deny the claim that a god exists. It is not my responsibility to prove that a god does not exist as proving a universal negative is impossible. I don’t need to prove that there are not invisible unicorns living below the surface of the moon in order to not believe it when someone claims that there indeed are.

[Professor_X]

[quote]1-packlondoner wrote:
Atheism is the absence of theism - which is the belief in the existence of a deity.[/quote]

Affirmatively asserting the nonexistence of a higher power takes it beyond the simple absence of belief. If there was simply no belief at all, there wouldn’t be such a strong attempt to degrade or fight those who believe in God. Taking it further, think of it this way…Hate is not the absence of love. The absence of caring or love is indifference. Hate takes a form of caring because emotion is expressed. The same applies here. For those who don’t believe to take it beyond simply not caring or not believing into the realm of caring a whole lot about how everyone else is stupid for believing, you cross that line into faith. Maybe your faith is in science. Whatever it is, someone who cared so much as to even jump on a several page thread to argue their “non-belief” has faith in something…whether they admit it or not.

[1_packlondoner]

[quote]Professor X wrote:
1-packlondoner wrote:
Atheism is the absence of theism - which is the belief in the existence of a deity.

Affirmatively asserting the nonexistence of a higher power takes it beyond the simple absence of belief. If there was simply no belief at all, there wouldn’t be such a strong attempt to degrade or fight those who believe in God. Taking it further, think of it this way…Hate is not the absence of love. The absence of caring or love is indifference. Hate takes a form of caring because emotion is expressed. The same applies here. For those who don’t believe to take it beyond simply not caring or not believing into the realm of caring a whole lot about how everyone else is stupid for believing, you cross that line into faith. Maybe your faith is in science. Whatever it is, someone who cared so much as to even jump on a several page thread to argue their “non-belief” has faith in something…whether they admit it or not.[/quote]

Hiya,

I have faith in many things but atheism is a tricky subject and I have certainly have not fought or attempted to dissuade those who believe. Well not because of that anyway. I’m assuming you weren’t implying that I did.

To condense the myriad accepeted definitions, in addition to the thousands of ‘personal’ interpretations of the word atheism into a singular aspect is akin to saying every Christian is the same regardless of denomination, which I don’t hold to be true either.

I have at no point suggested someone of a religious denomination was stupid for believing what they do. If anything on this site I have made a point of suggesting that everyone should just live and let live until the way Subject X behaves intrudes on the life of Subject Y.

Only reason I hung around this thread so long was I was waiting for the person that had a dig at me to justify his strange comments. Never happened - became a very strange slagging match instead, which I’m sure has not yet reached its zenith.

Okay this has totally been cut and paste from Wiki, which I’m aware is not the be all and end all of facts but still, for your reading pleasure.

Atheism, in its broadest sense, is the absence of theism (the belief in the existence of deities). This encompasses both people who assert that there are no gods, and those who make no claim about whether gods exist or not. Narrower definitions of atheism, however, typically label as atheists only those people who affirmatively assert the nonexistence of gods, and classify other nonbelievers as agnostics or simply non-theists.

Many people who self-identify as atheists do tend to share common skeptical concerns regarding the evidence (or lack of evidence) of the world’s many deities and creation stories as well as questioning the goodness and morality of religions that have brought us such things as holy wars and inquisitions. Yet while some adhere to philosophies such as humanism, naturalism and materialism, there is no single ideology that all atheists share, nor does atheism have any institutionalized rituals or behaviors. Indeed, atheism is inspired by many rationales, encompassing personal, scientific, social, philosophical, and historical reasoning.

Although atheism is commonly equated with irreligion in Western culture, some religious beliefs (such as some forms of Buddhism), though not often so identified by the adherents, have been described as atheistic.

[BRONIUS]

[quote]hspder wrote:
gwann33 wrote:
Also, physics has shown that time is a property that is the result of the existence of matter.

I hate to be the Physics-Nazi, but this is getting overboard.

First, time is not a “property”. Time is a fundamental quantity. Second, it has nothing to do with matter – there is no causal relationship and, in fact, there is no relationship at all between time and matter.

The only (weak) connection you can make between the two is highly indirect: matter creates gravity; gravity does distort spacetime. However that is not only a gross oversimplification, it is far from a direct relationship, especially considering that gravity is very misunderstood, and it certainly does not prove transient causality, and even if it did it would be with spacetime, not time on its own.

Furthermore, there is clearly also a concept of time for energy – photons do NOT move infinitely fast, and behavior is very well contained in the boundaries of spacetime.

With regards to time as a dimension: only in the context of spacetime (a model that combines three-dimensional space and one-dimensional time into a single construct called the space-time continuum) time plays the role of the 4th dimension. According to Euclidean space perception, our universe has three dimensions of space, and one dimension of time. By combining the two concepts into a single manifold, physicists are able to significantly simplify the form of most physical laws, as well as describe the workings of the universe at both supergalactic and subatomic levels in a more uniform way, that’s all.
[/quote]

Infinitely many things can exist by definition. The question is how much truth content each of these definitions possesses. Science is used to determine this about a Mathematical concept. In mathematics, for example, we do define Euclidean Space (straight, perpendicular x-y-z axes). In reality, Science teaches us that such a thing does not exist. (Our earthly conditions do give a good approximation for Euclidean Geometry but General Relativity showed that this does not hold everywhere in the large-scale Universe.)

So Einstein is very likely to have been right about Relativity. But his theory delivers astonishing ideas about our Universe. I will try to keep it simple: it tells that we do not live in a Euclidean space with straight, perpendicular x-y-z axes; we live in a world where the 3-D space necessarily bends and this can only be possible if it is of more than 3 dimensions. At least 4… What is more, he concluded that time needs to be a dimension too. This means that scientifically speaking, time should be thought of as simply a 4th geometric co-ordinate of the actually static things in the Universe. (If you do not believe this, I can explain the arguments and show why this should hold.)

That means that our perception of passing time might be like the perception of a 2-D bug going round and round an apple, thinking that the route of its journey seems to last forever but must have had a “beginning”. Our Universe is very likely to be “finite but unbounded”… Olber’s paradox, or the problem about why our night sky is dark, is an evidence for this. (This is very interesting, actually. I can explain if you are interested! )

And that means that the concept of “beginning” is nothing we can talk about. Now, I do know that is difficult to understand -but just because something is difficult to understand, it is not necessarily a lie.

Einstein’s theories in particular have been proved right many times. Modern GPRS satellites use his theory to compensate for the approximately 8 sec/day time-difference that can be detected because of their large distance from the center of the earth and the speed of their rotation around the earth. Einstein’s theory does work. There need not have been a “beginning”.

Having said that, the current position of science suggests that the Universe came into being according to the Big Bang model. That is, matter formed from energy (E = mc^2 says just that this is possible!!); first it was elementary particles that formed, then these particles joined to form bigger particles due to elementary forces, then the bigger particles joined to form bigger particles, and so on… forming clouds of particles, then the clouds started collapsing because of the gravitational action and stars, solar systems and galaxies formed, hence our earth too. What caused the Big Bang? Science admits it doesn?t know. Scientific honesty requires that we do not just give a ?guess? as an answer. We simply don?t know.

There is also much evidence for the Big Bang model. Number one, our Universe appears to be expanding in all directions. All stars and all planets and all galaxies are getting further away from each other; this suggests that going back in time, they were closer so there was a time when they were infinitely close to each other. Secondly, the temperature of space is not absolute zero. This unexpected fact is well explained by the heat loss predicted by the Big Bang model. There are also other pieces of evidence that I could go into, if you wish. Yet, the Big Bang model is not perfect, there are a number of problems with it and most scientists do accept that. The scientifically honest answer is that we are not nearly sure how our Universe came into existence -but there is a great probability of a better solution coming up in the near future based on modern experimental results.

[ZEB]

[quote]1-packlondoner wrote:
You really are an oversensitive little man. [/quote]

Now your getting to the really important part of what you wanted to say.

It’s shocking that you would use personal attacks on a message board…OH MY!

Now let’s see who predicted you would do that?

That would be me.

I’m done with you now.

Promises…promises…

This line by line comeback thing of yours is getting very tiresome

Well then take a nap before you respond…Um…or before I respond…Oh just go lie down.

and you only seem to deal with binary oppositions.

That’s all my tiny brain can handle. Remember I’m a Christian and Christians can’t be all that smart, right?

I mean that’s the politically correct liberal mantra.

Something is either complimentary or it’s insulting.

That’s just how I see things…When they are either complimentary or insulting that is…

Once again, show me where I insulted your religion. Not where I asserted my beliefs, but where I insulted your religion.

My original supposition of how things would go was that YOU would resort to name calling and or personal put downs.

And you have, you said:

[quote]“Grow up.”

“Christianity is based upon fear.”

"insinuated that me and Hitler were in “the same box.”

“You really are an oversensitive little man.”[/quote]

This post is not over yet…will I have to add others?

Let’s see shall we?

As for you personally, calling you a cunt would be insulting. Suggesting you have issues not dissimilar to a persecution complex is a concern.

Thank you, I will add that to the list.

Until you can make that distinction we may as well draw this fun little dialogue to a close.

Oh darn…just when we were really starting to relate to each other…

Hold on now that’s the second time you promised that on this thread.

When you’ve still not managed to make any sense of your original dig at me,

If you scroll back to (I think) my second post I explained it all to you. That you disagree is fine. And in fact expected it.

Remember when I wrote this:

You will never award me a big gold start. Nor will you ever give me credit for any point that I post.

I was right huh?

How did I know?

And I was right about who I was dealing with very very early on. And that pisses you off too.

I called you a politically correct liberal atheist…And I was RIGHT!

I’m hardly going to PM you and ask you to write something so important as why and how Jesus’ death saved all our souls.

Hey I like that excuse…Yep, it’s a good one.

You were no more going to PM me and ask about Jesus Christ than I was going to tap dance with your Queen at the palace tonight.

You were throwing that out there as a ploy.

Gee…I never had that happen before on this forum.

DUH!

Anyway, why not write it for all to see on this board? I’m sure I’m not the only atheist who would love to hear your views on that particular topic.

Been there and done that many times, where you been?

I’m starting to think your knowledge of that which you champion is as limited as your ability to react peacibly to anyone asking polite questions about your faith.

Of course you do.

When you don’t like where someone is coming from you (as in we) subscribe all sorts of nasty things to their character.

I’m sure you know a bit about Psychology, you’re a smart guy.

You have done nothing but be disrespectful, attempt to goad me and whilst I kept on giving you the benefit of the doubt you have not actually replied with anything of note other than veiled insults and digs.

Okay, I have to tell someone this before I bust.

I love that word “whilst.”

I’ve wanted to use it many times, but being an American it just would not fit in.

Dang…

Well I’m bored of that now as you don’t even seem to have anything to bring to the debate aside from the digs.

I have nice “digs.” Of course I worked hard to get where I am.

How about you? Do you live in a nice place too?

You are a cretin.

Ahh…that felt good huh? Now you’re getting down to it.

Would that be the fifth or sixth personal attack of yours?

Oh who’s counting, we’re all not friends here.

Indifference is not caring either way, which I didn’t before you responded to me. What part of that did you not quite grasp?

Another personal put down! You are on a roll man.

[quote]‘And any correspondance between someone from your “background” and my own background would pretty much end like this…on a message board.’

Your choice that one. [/quote]

Not at all mate!

(I like “mate” too. Not as good as “Whilst” But still good.)

For myself, I really tried.

You tried what?

Scroll back when you have the time. I basically posted:

A. My stance on the liberal and politically correct.

B. And I predicted that you were a politically correct lefty atheist.

C. And that you would resort to name calling and personal attacks.

Now exactly where did I say something wrong?

That I was so very correct is what sparked your tirade of personal attacks.

Odd huh?

I’ve discussed similar issues with others many times and not had any problems with people on this forum.

And you don’t have a problem now.

[quote]In person it would be different.

Absolutely it would because you are nowhere near sharp enough to have an argument like this with me in person.[/quote]

WOW! Another personal attack?

This is incredible!

And from a person who said that they don’t do such things…(shaking head).

I’m right about that too huh?

Remember how you said you like civil debate? And you also said:

BTW - It’s nice to have proper ‘non-flamey’ conversations on subjects like this which I appreciate are very close to people’s hearts.

To which I inquired:

But will you stay that way?

Again, I had you figured correctly.

No credit for that?

No…that ticks you off I’m sure.

Sorry.

One more comment about your latest personal attack.

I think I would be plenty “sharp” enough to handle your politically correct atheistic lefty arguments in person. I would have you figured out just as I did on this board.

However, what I meant by that comment is that YOU and I would both be far more civil in person. This whole anonymity thing has really not been good for civil discourse.

And in addition to that these political boards attract mostly the far left or far right types.

And that would include you and me.

[quote]I fear I would either a) end up cutting you down in a hail of verbal abuse or b) feel sorry because I was obviously talking with the special kid who couldn’t grasp simple concepts and took everything way too personally. To paraphrase Tupac - Shit, you ain’t even on my level.
[/quote]

No of course not…no one is on your level. You are way way up there…

You are going out true to fashion exactly as I predicted.

Personal attack after personal attack.

Thank you for making me look good.

-you are a pedant and like to argue semantics rather than issues.

And this from the man who said he was only interested in issue and would NEVER resort to personal attacks on the Internet.

Hey…you learned fast huh?

I said I judge everyone on their own merits regardless of any of those things, maybe you should do the same.

You just can’t get over the fact that I predicted exactly what you were all about after reading only one of your posts.

And I was right…try to get over it.

Well you most certainly don’t judge every atheist on their own merits as I have discovered so I stand by it.

I “judged” you to a “T”.

For the record what ARE your views on blacks, jews, gays and muslims?

No, you don’t want to hear any of this you said that you were “finished” with me. Remember, you’re “tired” of me. You are “done” with me. This has become “bothersome.”

And just when I thought we were having fun…

Oh I know what happened. You said all those things in the beginning of your post. Then as you began typing you sort of realized that this is the most fun you have ever had on a message board and you don’t want it to end.

come on say it…You’re going to miss ole’ Zeb.

Anyway… Looking forward to being abusive and non-PC from now on in.

Please understand this: It’s okay for the PC crowd to be abusive as long as it’s toward the proper group. So far you have lived up to the perfect PC atheist lefty.

You didn’t let me down. Please, please don’t walk away thinking that.

Now get up brush yourself off and get out of here…You crazy leftist kid (ruffles hair and kicks him in the pants).

Bye

[BRONIUS]

[quote]Mordred wrote:
OK…number one…AHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!

Now that I have that out of the way, physics discussions like this make me cry on the inside. I might be just a slightly eccentric tennis pro in real life, but everyone that has a physics degree here raise your hands. Hey, my hand is up!

1. There was NOTHING before the initial moment of the big bang. No energy, no spacetime, definately no matter. Nothing. Time did not exist. This is not an easy concept to wrap your mind around. Let it sink in.

2. Matter and time are most definately interrelated. All mass has an equivalent relativistic energy. Energy distorts spacetime. This distortion is dependent on the density of energy. This distortion is the cause of the gravitational force (according to relativistic theory at least). The degree of the distortion determines the rate at which time passes.

Time passes slower the closer you are to any mass. This is a proven and measurable effect. Clocks run measurably slower on the surface of the earth than they do in orbit for instance.

You can certainly have spacetime that exists without matter in it. There is some fundamental debate as to whether spacetime can exist totally free of any energy at all.

hspder, read the above quote, I actually know quite a bit about physics, but that was not my point, I was answering the question to “Who made God” thread.

[1_packlondoner]

Zeb,

You’re right. I finally did get personal. Stick pins in a dog for long enough and he’s eventually gonna bite you, even if I accept the analogy is rather dramatic in light of the few tiny little remarks I have made about you, as opposed to the ones that yet again you misread or just plain invented.

You provoked and provoked until you got what you wanted and then felt vindicated. Well done. Big pat on the back for you. Clever boy.

Nothing left to say to someone who is incapable of reading something without trying to find a hidden political agenda in every word.

I have no problem with your or any other’s religion. I DO however have a problem with you. You act like a 15 year-old trying to act ‘big, tough and clever’. You have zero interest in conversation, only confrontation.

I’m tired of having to re-explain every sentence you have misread or misinterpreted. If something written (to my mind) quite articulately causes you to miss the point so frequently, I hate to think how you interprate Bible passages.

In short, you’re a cock. Laters.

[ZEB]

[quote]1-packlondoner wrote:
Zeb,

You’re right. I finally did get personal. Stick pins in a dog for long enough and he’s eventually gonna bite you, even if I accept the analogy is rather dramatic in light of the few tiny little remarks I have made about you, as opposed to the ones that yet again you misread or just plain invented. You provoked and provoked until you got what you wanted and then felt vindicated. Well done. Big pat on the back for you. Clever boy.[/quote]

Yes, I know it’s all my fault. Here is what YOU call provoking: I predicted that you were a politically correct lefty who was an atheist. And I predicted that you were going to resort to name calling. Therefore, it’s my fault. I follow that logic (eye roll).

Nothing left to say to someone who is incapable of reading something without trying to find a hidden political agenda in every word.

What did you mean by that?

Was there a hidden political agenda in there…Hmmm

I have no problem with your or any other’s religion. I DO however have a problem with you. You act like a 15 year-old trying to act ‘big, tough and clever’. You have zero interest in conversation, only confrontation.

More personal insults.

Thank you, you are off the charts man!

I’m tired of having to re-explain every sentence you have misread or misinterpreted.

I misinterpreted NOTHING! And in fact was way way ahead you.

If something written (to my mind) quite articulately causes you to miss the point so frequently, I hate to think how you interprate Bible passages.

Yes…of course, I must be a person who gets things all fouled up huh? That’s why I was able to call YOU right on the money!

LOL

[quote]In short, you’re a cock. Laters.

[/quote]

And he ends on a personal attack…I love it…I do too.

Hey wait, I just thought of something. You said you were “finished” with me in your last post. Remember how you described it?

“tired” “done” “bothersome.” Yet, here you are posting back to me. Admit it you like this…

Sorry if I hit a few nerves in our little exchange. Sometimes the truth hurts pal.

And I’m sorry I didn’t get a chance to hang around for your regurgitated blather:

“God cannot exist if bla bla bla bla…” Ha ha ha…

No wait…actually I’m not sorry. I’m happy I missed that repeat.

[Dr_Stig]

I’d also sincerley hope that a bunch of neo-Nazis don’t adopt ZEB as object of their fanboy culture after totally missing his irony.