Believe:

[Kyuuketsuki]

Then on to Kyu. Good morning. May I ask what your name means, it is very long and full of u's. My online pseudonym is based on a little dog we named after Pippen Took.

Japanese for Vampire.

there is no law, no rule of debate that says I have to think like you...and to take the tack you are taking is little but a dismissive attempt at character assassination.

I am not at all asking you to think like me. That would be very foolish. I am asking you not to read what I write and instantly try to disagree. It is hard to ask someone who does not know me to offer any respect, because you have no reason too. If you knew me in my daily life, you would likely be surprised. I think I am much more thorough in my thinking and intelligent that you are giving me credit. Then I would ask you to respect my wild ideas, because you know my simple ideas are usually apt. But we don't have that luxury. Nothing I do, let me please assure you, is a dismissive attempt at 'character assassination'. I don't have any superiority complex, I have no conceivable reason to try to 'assassinate' your 'character'. I am trying to tell you I am not dishonest and petty, but if you want to think I am, I cannot stop you.

Whilst I am slightly antagonistic towards you because I haven't liked much of what I've read I do read your stuff and have even agreed with you when it was appropriate. The rest? As to what appears to be a plea that I would like you in real life well ... maybe ... all my friends are atheist and that's a large part of why I like & respect them and I have no online friends but hey ... I suppose it's possible that I might end up liking my first ever theist, online ... you never know.

and exactly how do you justify that one particular scripture holds more worth than another?

Well, how do you decide what poetry or mythology holds more worth? Try reading them, compare the Talmud with the gnostic Gospel of Truth. One instructs some very bad and unhealthy things. The other has some great, albeit spoken in code, advice about healthy states-of-mind. I judge the works as I judge any other books. With my head.

I'm not asking why you LIKE one more than another, I am asking why one scripture holds more (real/empirical/actual] worth than another ... surely you have a method? You see that's what I want, the how, because I've heard this kind of crud before and in the end it always boils down to one thing ... you like it because you p[prefer it, no rhyme or reason, no logic, no real method, you like it because it holds greater appeal. And what's really interesting is that more often than not it is the religion of their birth or then people with whom they associate most.

so stop messing about and just accept that it matters as much to you as it does to me that people agree and disagree with what you say

Please allow me to make this point as clearly as possible. It does not matter as much to me as it does to you that people agree or disagree with me. I am not 'messing about', I have too little time to spend my life speaking falsehoods. If you disagree, or think that I am delusional, that is fine. But I am not lying to you. It took years of practice, but I learned to be very good at controlling how other people make me feel. If I needed validation, I would have given up long ago, because for most of my beliefs, I have never been validated. Some art, some music, some books, but few people have said the things I think.

And I believe you are deluding yourself and/or attempting to deceive others ... I don't for one moment believe you are doing it maliciously but I still believe you are doing it. I base it on the fact that I have interacted/debated/discussed with thousands of theists online, and with many, many others very much like you and you might like to think, you’re different but you're really not and those experiences explain a lot of why I am as cynical towards you as I am.

You're wrong. I care what people think about my views (even you).

Oh, please don't! I get the impression that you have decided you aren't very fond of me at all. So then what value to you is my opinion. In fact, if you think I am such an idiot, for me to disagree with you is validation that you are not like this idiot. I wish I could care what people thought, but it is dangerous and useless to me. If I didn't get the impression I am on the planet of the stupids, may be.

You're right ... it didn’t take me long to get your measure (see above) and , if it's all the same with you, I will continue to believe what I believe about you until such time as you actually demonstrate this lack of care you supposedly have.

No, Dawkins, IS NOT an asshole just because you say so, he is ex-Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science and, quite frankly, people don't get given positions such as that when they are "assholes" ... the fact is that you equate "asshole" to someone you don't like or who attitude you don't like and that makes YOU the asshole.

I didn't at all equate an asshole to someone I didn't like. I (decide I) don't like Dawkins, because (I think) he is an asshole, not the other way around. I gave him a fair shake, but his stance left me deeply offended and unimpressed. I made it clear before why I think he is an asshole.

In other words you don't like what he says and the way he says it ... well big whoop ... I do and I absolutely believe he has the measure of theism and what you people don't like is his tendency to go for your soft underbelly and hold nothing back. Guy's a genius IMO.

Then tell me.

Sigh. I see little point, but OK. Very briefly. Don't lie, Don't steal, don't manipulate for benefit, don't take more than you need, don't hurt others... Kind of like Right Thought, Right Action. I made up these rules myself, based on my moral strengths and weaknesses. No one told me them, although I do credit god in a way. (In the sense that god is everything, even me) I try my best to follow my rules. I am not entirely sure why, but it feels VERY important and comes from my 'gut'. I would wish that more people make themselves rules (not my rules), and got away form the mindset that 'it ain't wrong unless I get caught and punished'.

I very much doubt you made them up any more than I did mine, validate them perhaps but "made them up" no.

They are simplistic but not specifically bad.

I'm not good at math either but that doesn't mean I reject it like you do science because you (apparently) aren't good at it

I never said I rejected science. This is what I mean when I say it appears you are not listening. I think I clearly said that science and the scientific method led me to my beliefs. You may have assumed I was lying, because it makes so little sense to you. I only think science (the scientific method) can be used incorrectly, and make incorrect results. Learning about things, out of curiosity and want to understand is very commendable. Learning about things for the need to try to control is dangerous and weak. I think am quite 'good at' science I guess. Doesn't really matter though.

I know you never said it, I can read between the lines and will you shut up about not listening? I am whether you approve of the way I do things or not I am reading every word you type and thinking about them before I reply.

No one says science can't get it wrong and there is only one reason why the scientific method continues to be used ... as one engineer famously put it, "Because the bridges stay up".

Music is human interpretation of sounds that are part of this apparently naturally "evolved" universe. Math is a human method of managing abstract numbers and their relationships or (more precisely I assume) is the science or a group of related sciences that deals with the logic of quantity, shape and arrangement (Wordnet).

Yes, I understand. I mean that both Math and Music are things that would exist outside of human cognition. We don't invent a musical scale, like we invent a water filter. We only name it, but it's reality is obviously outside of us. Math is harder, but the same. It is abstract, but fundamental. Unless you read a lot of Hawkins, we can try to assume that mathematical truths are the same the whole universe over. They may not be, but what a mind-bender that is. When I learn something, I try to relate it to music. That way I know I am attempting to relate to as fundamental a truth as I (personally) can.

No, we did invent the musical scales ... it's actually well documented because there is a precise mathematical relationship between each note but it s most certainly a human invention in the exact same way as species are a human invention.

There was no "before" the big bang, time is a property of space and space was created when this universe formed.

I don't know if you are in a position to tell me what happened at the supposed beginning of the universe. All we have in that realm (much like the argument about god) is theory. Unless, I may be mistaken, and you might have been there to see it.

Oh dear! And in a single sentence any respect for you I ever had or might have had just went whoosh!

Approximately 13½ billion years ago the universe was compressed to the size of an atomic nucleus. This, in lay terminology, was the moment before time and space existed (technically speaking no "before" existed) ... at this "time" the universe was highly ordered, immensely hot and spinning ... it was in the lowest state of entropy the universe has ever been and ever will be again.

The entity, known as a singularity, exploded ... although there is evidence (background radiation and more) there is no way that we mere humans can conceive of the immensity of that explosion, the temperatures involved. Suffice it to say that in the first thousandth of a second the universe expanded from sub-atomic to something just over a thousand metres in width.

The major forces (strong & weak nuclear, electromagnetic and gravity) didn't exist initially and only in the first fractions of the first second (10-43) did they appear forming themselves into a combined super-force. The first particles began to form photons, positrons, neutrinos and their corresponding anti-particles and most of these were destroyed in the fury around them and it is sobering to consider that the surviving particles (less than 1 in a billion) went on to form the physical universe we know today.

With matter and radiation inseparable (an ionised plasma) the universe expanded until it was 100th second old at which point neutrinos began decaying on a massive scale, allowing for free electrons and protons to combine with other particles and the formation of deuterium (heavy hydrogen). Few of these particles could survive long (a few nanoseconds at best) due to intense bombardment from electrons and the density of the exploding mass means that no light was visible in the "cloud". Finally, during the "epoch of last scattering", the major forces are allowed to exert their unique influences.

At the end of its first second, having cooled to a mere 10 billion degrees, photons and electrons are no longer capable of disintegrating newly formed particles and by the end of the third second, at a billion degrees Kelvin, nucleosynthesis is able to start. Helium nuclei begin to form at a rate that will eventually form our universe with around 25% helium. Thirty minutes later conditions dictated that electron-positron pair annihilation allowed for an increase in the rate of formation of photons and some scientists believe that our universe could not have formed the way it has if it weren't for the fact that the universe contains slightly more electrons than positrons.

Over the next 300,000 years the universe cools to around 10,000 Kelvin, helium nuclei acquire electrons and from helium atoms, hydrogen combines to form lithium. Radiation and matter can now separate and visible light can now be seen.

That's a simple version now ... would you be good enough to tell me what evidence you have to support the existence of, say, your great grandfather given that photos and films can be faked, documents can be forged, artefacts can be placed and lies can be told?

Now ask YOURSELF this simple question, "Am I really so naïve that I believe that we have to see something with out own little twinkies to have evidence that it happened that way?"

You've be wrong to cal me American.

I assume form your slang and that blog link that you are in the UK. I would have called you American in the same sense I called you a 2-year-old. I know you are not 2. It is allegory.

Fair enough ... it didn't come across clearly.

You DO care otherwise you wouldn't be here.

I have other motivators. I see this is very difficult for you to understand/believe. I don't really care if you continue thinking I care (hehe), but I dislike being misunderstood. Please understand that that is much different from caring what people think, I just hate being misrepresented, because it is likely a failure to communicate effectively on my part. I can try to explain it a thousand different ways, and I can understand your scepticism. I think I would be sceptical of me in your shoes. If I cared, why would I come to an Atheist board to discuss Theism? Unless I am a sadist of some sort.

Se above and the very fact that you keep arguing that you don't only adds further evidence that you do.

Thank you again for your time. I see why you call yourself the angry atheist, you have a lot of passion. I commend that. I am still not interested in arguing or fighting. Just respectful debating. May be we just have to 'smell each others butts' and then we can move on to better topics. I look forward to your reply, and now I am going downtown to see if I can find a Mandolin. It seems the perfect transition from guitar to violin.

Remember you are in an atheist forum, that here you must prove your view is worthwhile before anyone (except fellow theists) will truly respect it (extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence 'n all that).

As for smelling your butt ... if you're female, between say 25 and 40 and halfway decent looking yeah sure, I'm up for anything LOL.

Kyu