Why do Atheist always get humiliated if they debate a scholar?

[GGG Gloveking]

Ive never said anyone is wrong for believing in God.




You have complained in a previous thread about people being condescending towards you. Id say now you are being condescending. It doesnt bother me. But does seem hypocritical considering ive tried to be extra polite.

And you are assuming because my answer is "i dont know" that i haven't put any thought into it.
Why?
It comes down to, like ive said, you believing you have the answers vs me saying, scientists dont know enough yet.




I dont have a problem with anyone saying God caused the big bang. I dont share their belief, so i am curious. I ask questions in a discussion like this and share my opinions.
So i dont agree with the idea that the big bang has to explain its cause to be a legitimate theory like you have suggested. Thats different from having a problem with anyones belief that God caused the big bang.
I dont think scientific theories can be challenged by religious beliefs. But can be challenged by a scientific argument,




Well, in our previous debate in another thread you didnt respond after thanks giving to my post that i did indeed put my time into.
Plus, i dont see how anyone would think that i dont put thought into my responses.
Seems like you dont like my answer?
If scientists working on this stuff dont know, how can i give you an answer other than "i dont know"?

It all comes down to you believing you "know" the answers that scientists are working on.
I challenge that belief.





I dont think anyone has claimed that they "know" belief in a creator is wrong.

Its a discussion i guess about the reasons for and against these beliefs.
Seems like some people feel like they are being attacked. Even though i have tried to be as nice as possible.
Honestly, i see people playing the victim a lot in many discussions.

It sure looks like you're saying I'm wrong to me.

... common fundamental misunderstanding of the theory...misunderstanding of the theory is a big problem...But you can believe it was designed.
By Big Bird? ....You gotta understand the theory first...You dont understand the basics..

As far as me getting a little condescending, sure, I did. After you ridicule my belief comparing it to Big Bird, while offering up the same level of thought of someone who would watch Big Bird. I ask for your thoughts, for what you think, and the answer I get is "I don't know." It takes zero thought and effort to come up with I don't know. You remind me of a school child. You don't have a clue on your own, don't have an independent thought, and just sit there waiting for your preacher, I'm sorry scientist, to tell you what the answer is supposed to be. That's the ultimate level of faith and belief right there. So yeah, when I ask for what you think and believe, and then I get no effort, just an "I don't know", it gets under my skin and I let it show.

As far as not responding, I realized we reached an impasse that wasn't going to be rectified. We differ in two fundamental areas on this topic. Firstly, as I just addressed, I'm not content just having and giving "I don't know" as an answer. I might not fully understand everything, but I want it to at least be logical. You seem happy with a shoulder shrug and a dunno as an answer. That's a major difference. The second major difference in our views is that I feel this lack of answers by scientists equates to a belief. I feel when science doesn't have the answer, it turns into "I don't know, but take my word for it." You don't feel this way, and I feel these major difference in opinion are points we don't need to further discuss.

[GGG Gloveking]

Difference is evolution has proof and big bang theory is now observable through telescopes. Religious people got nothin.

So, I'm guessing you'll be the one to finally tell me...

Where did whatever material was affected by the big bang come from? What acted upon that material to cause the bang? And where did the first forms of life emerge?

Go look through your telescope and let me know when you see the answer.

[The Noose]

It sure looks like you're saying I'm wrong to me.

Looks like i wrote an awful lot more than "you are wrong" to me.
Its interesting that thats what you see.

I could say that every response from you is saying that i am wrong.
But i try to explain why i disagree with you. Very different from just saying "you are wrong".

As far as me getting a little condescending, sure, I did. After you ridicule my belief comparing it to Big Bird, while offering up the same level of thought of someone who would watch Big Bird.

Well, you compared a birds next to the universe and compared yourself to a child.
I could have mocked you for that but didnt because i understood what you meant.
I thought maybe you could take a wee joke, even using a joke smiley to make it clear it was a joke.

Youre way too easily offended.

You just focus on what offends you and ignore any points of discussion.

I ask for your thoughts, for what you think, and the answer I get is "I don't know." It takes zero thought and effort to come up with I don't know. You remind me of a school child. You don't have a clue on your own, don't have an independent thought, and just sit there waiting for your preacher, I'm sorry scientist, to tell you what the answer is supposed to be. That's the ultimate level of faith and belief right there. So yeah, when I ask for what you think and believe, and then I get no effort, just an "I don't know", it gets under my skin and I let it show.

Flat earthers also call scientists "preachers".

Id say you put no effort into studying the theories you criticise, and put no effort into discussing the topic.

You keep feeling like you are being ridiculed or mocked.

Back on topic...If the question is "how did life emerge?" id look to what people who are studying this stuff have to say.
And they say they dont know.

What are my options?
1. God
2. ?

As far as not responding, I realized we reached an impasse that wasn't going to be rectified. We differ in two fundamental areas on this topic. Firstly, as I just addressed, I'm not content just having and giving "I don't know" as an answer. I might not fully understand everything, but I want it to at least be logical. You seem happy with a shoulder shrug and a dunno as an answer. That's a major difference. The second major difference in our views is that I feel this lack of answers by scientists equates to a belief. I feel when science doesn't have the answer, it turns into "I don't know, but take my word for it." You don't feel this way, and I feel these major difference in opinion are points we don't need to further discuss.

Cool, if you dont want to discuss anything.


Saying "i dont know" dosnt mean any other belief or hypothesis must be wrong.
I think thats how you take it.

That when scientists say they dont know, than they are the ultimate authority and all other opinions are silly.
But i dont see it that way.
We test ideas through science and see if the guesses were right.
Without science, i dont see a way to really test anything. Doesnt mean what you believe isnt true. Im just explaining why i dont share your viewpoint.

I dont believe if your religious youre less intelligent at all. Many of the greatest scientists have been very religious.
I see it as not sharing your belief on something neither of us cannot really prove.

[Jax teller]

So, I'm guessing you'll be the one to finally tell me...

Where did whatever material was affected by the big bang come from? What acted upon that material to cause the bang? And where did the first forms of life emerge?

Go look through your telescope and let me know when you see the answer.

Where did God come from?

[GGG Gloveking]

Where did God come from?

God, by definition, is supernatural, and omnipresent, which means God does not have to have a defined origin.

Matter, and substance, are finite and natural, and therefore must have an origin.

Unless you want to say it's magic...

[GGG Gloveking]

Looks like i wrote an awful lot more than "you are wrong" to me.
Its interesting that thats what you see.

I could say that every response from you is saying that i am wrong.
But i try to explain why i disagree with you. Very different from just saying "you are wrong".



Well, you compared a birds next to the universe and compared yourself to a child.
I could have mocked you for that but didnt because i understood what you meant.
I thought maybe you could take a wee joke, even using a joke smiley to make it clear it was a joke.

Youre way too easily offended.

You just focus on what offends you and ignore any points of discussion.


Flat earthers also call scientists "preachers".

Id say you put no effort into studying the theories you criticise, and put no effort into discussing the topic.

You keep feeling like you are being ridiculed or mocked.

Back on topic...If the question is "how did life emerge?" id look to what people who are studying this stuff have to say.
And they say they dont know.

What are my options?
1. God
2. ?





Cool, if you dont want to discuss anything.


Saying "i dont know" dosnt mean any other belief or hypothesis must be wrong.
I think thats how you take it.

That when scientists say they dont know, than they are the ultimate authority and all other opinions are silly.
But i dont see it that way.
We test ideas through science and see if the guesses were right.
Without science, i dont see a way to really test anything. Doesnt mean what you believe isnt true. Im just explaining why i dont share your viewpoint.

I dont believe if your religious youre less intelligent at all. Many of the greatest scientists have been very religious.
I see it as not sharing your belief on something neither of us cannot really prove.

You did mock me for my belief, even if you hid it behind a joke.

I'm really tired of this sheit of "you didn't study the theory" that I'm getting. Do you honestly think that as a pre-med biology major, I didn't study the science? Honestly?!

But since I'm so wrong about your stupid little theory, please correct the incorrect statements...

1. Science teaches that a mass was reacted upon, causing a "big bang" and thus beginning the universe.

2. Science has no explanation for the origin of this mass.

3. Science has no explanation for what force affected the mass which caused this big bang.

4. One of the laws of thermodynamics teaches that an object at rest, must remain at rest unless acted upon by an outside source.

5. Science teaches that humans evolved from primates, mammals, birds, fish, all the way back to a monocellular organism.

6. Science has no explanation for the origin of the first organism.

The part in bold is the entire argument I was making in the other thread. That there's guesswork involved in science.

[Jax teller]

God, by definition, is supernatural, and omnipresent, which means God does not have to have a defined origin.

Matter, and substance, are finite and natural, and therefore must have an origin.

Unless you want to say it's magic...

Not a very convincing argument.

And one theory is matter come from nothing that's why anti matter exists 0=1+(-1)

[billeau2]

Mixing up different theories

Look... Not saying, in this post, that one theory is better/worse than another... But we do have to make a distinction between observable phenomena in a theory and that which is postulated from observations.

The theory of evolution is a theory based on observation. The theory originally involved drawing organisms, and noting traits that changed according to the environment. Darwin found that a closed eco-system was like a Rosetta stone for showing the emergence of certain general traits, like size...

The Big Bang is not based on observation, it is based on waves being interpreted primarily. There is a difference.

[GGG Gloveking]

Not a very convincing argument.

And one theory is matter come from nothing that's why anti matter exists 0=1+(-1)

What's not a convincing argument is attempting to attribute those properties to a gas or a rock.

So... because reversed polarized matter exists, that proves that matter came from nothing? I'm failing to follow that logic. If anything, the existence of antimatter only adds another element which the origin of needs to be explained.

[Jax teller]

What's not a convincing argument is attempting to attribute those properties to a gas or a rock.

So... because reversed polarized matter exists, that proves that matter came from nothing? I'm failing to follow that logic. If anything, the existence of antimatter only adds another element which the origin of needs to be explained.

It's not convincing to me because how can something always have always existed. There's always a begining so there has to be a before that.

This troubles me with scientific explanations as well.

The theory behind what I mentioned was that for something +1 to come from nothing 0 there has to be something to balance it -1 - anti-matter when the two come into contact +1-1 and annihilate. This is an unfinished theory as physicists calculated an asymmetry which they are searching for an explanation.

I'd be much more inclined to believe a god/God's/spirit made the big bang or something similar happen and just left things to play out as they are.

With all the atrocities to innocent even those who are too young to have sinned I find it hard to believe that their is some omnipresence that cares.

Also with the similarities of God's and faiths preceding the dominant ones today and the ability of humans to corrupt literature and manipulate others by propoganda, I highly doubt any holy scripts would be the true teachings of such a being.