Originally posted by Dasa
"You talk of fact but you have no fact when defending false science."
You talk of fact but you have no fact when defending false science.
You say life comes from non life this is not fact.
You say there is no God but this is not fact.... only ignorant belief.
You say that the complex cosmos with conscious life came from an explosion but this is not fact.
You have no facts but claim there is no God.
This is dishones ...[text shortened]... ecause its not the authority and its just as false as the false science that you are defending.
I have plenty of facts, actually science and the scientific method, is pretty much the only game in town when it comes
to generating and verifying facts.
"You say life comes from non life this is not fact."
There is a lot of evidence to suggest life can and did emerge from non-life.
Its complicated as to how (as you would expect).
"You say there is no God but this is not fact.... only ignorant belief."
I do not claim god non existence as a fact. I stated I didn't believe that god existed not that I knew god
didn't exist. I hold that this is the only logical position to hold in the absence of evidence to the contrary
but I don't Know there is no god.
"You say that the complex cosmos with conscious life came from an explosion but this is not fact."
The hypothesised big bang did not produce life, it produced energy and matter operating under the laws of physics.
This matter and energy interacted using these simple laws to produce complex results.
These results eventually included the formation of life.
There is an awful lot of evidence to back this view up, it is a subject I am 'qualified' to talk about, and I am more than
happy to explain it to you if you are prepared to come with an open mind and not wrongly call me dishonest every 3 lines.
"You have no facts but claim there is no God."
I have lots of facts, however I claim there is no god because there is no evidence FOR god.
This is true independent of my knowledge of anything else.
"This is dishonest and drives home the truth of what I have just presented .......saying persons are not qualified to discuss this.
You have just proven this."
Again you fail to understand the meaning of the word you love so much, dishonest.
I hold my position is self consistent, backed up with evidence, and is what I believe to be true. (although I admit the possibility
I could be wrong and would be interested in any evidence that shows my position to be wrong)
Thus under the definition of the word I am not being dishonest.
If you mean something other than what the word means in the dictionary then use other words.
If you do mean what it says in the dictionary then you are simply wrong.
And claiming you have to be 'qualified' in 'your' faith to be able to discuss it is just plain arrogant (given the vast number of faiths)
"Where is the experiment that shows complex functional useful things coming about by an explosion."
Explosions can cause interesting chemistry to occur depending on their environment and source.
And some of the more exciting elements above uranium on the periodic table were made and detected in nuclear blasts.
Helium can be made from hydrogen in a nuclear explosion.
But you are making a straw man, the big bang is not a conventional explosion, and most of the 'complexity' you see around you
was made after the big bang by the remnants interacting as they cooled and coalesced under the laws of physics.
"Where have you seen life coming about from a dead stone."
I have never seen life coming from a dead stone and no-one claims it did, you are again making a straw-man argument.
"Life comes from life."
Life does tend to produce more life... this does not preclude life forming from 'non-life' as you put it.
"Chaos comes from an explosion"
Chaos in science doesn't mean what you think it means. Chaos theory is intimately involved with how simple rules/laws
can create immensely complex and unpredictable results.
"And when you want to complain about religion don't keep referring to the Bible because its not the authority and its just as false
as the false science that you are defending."
Most theists here seem to be Christian, and the bible is probably the most well known religious text.
I did however say 'for example' when talking about the bible, and it is clear that the same would and does
apply to any and all other religious texts.
in your OP you say
" Persons who claim there is no God are disqualified from discussing God and true spirituality because they have had no true spiritual training and are opinionated in every respect.......they reject true authority, they reject obvious anthropic evidence, they reject common sense, they reject rational and logical discussion, they have the wrong attitude, they do not want God to exist even if God appeared before them, they are devoid of knowledge, they constantly speculate and fabricate, they accept blindly atheistic arguments, they are dishonest, they reject rational and logical conclusions, ..........they are clearly unqualified at every level to discuss God and spirituality. "
I appreciate that you evidently don't like and are greatly frustrated by atheists who have 'the wrong attitude' and all the other faults
you sweepingly ascribe to a huge and varied group of people whose one common distinguishing feature is to not believe in theism.
However to say you can only debate this idea unless you already agree with me is to misunderstand the point of debate.
If everyone already agreed with you there would be nothing to debate.
And you are misusing words again.
Knowledge, requires a lot of things but one of them is evidence, proof.
The ONLY way to knowledge is by scientific enquiry, of one sort or another.
If you are claiming something as part of your faith, if you don't have proof of it, Then you Believe something is true, you don't know it.
Thus scientists and science has a lot of knowledge, and as atheists tend towards higher than average scientific literacy, we can't be
said to be devoid of knowledge.
Devoid of faith, probably, knowledge, we have lots of.
Your list of faults for atheists, is not only not true, its a pretty reasonable assessment of your own faults.
If you want to continue bashing science and atheism (not the same thing, many(most) atheists are not scientists, some scientists are not atheists.
And even if it were not true, they still wouldn't be the same thing) then I would recommend you learn something about them.
Just as I aught to go read the bible carefully if I wanted to use quotes from it to support my arguments, you need to actually understand
what it is science or atheists actually claim/believe before you criticise things that are not true.
For starters you should learn something about organic chemistry, cosmology, chaos theory, fractals, the scientific method, evolution, and maths.
I would be happy to help if need any with that.