Are atheists afraid of judgement?

Originally posted by The MISTER
I have no intention of passing judgement on you. I believe that is wrong for anybody to do.

Then why do you argue with people once they've answered your questions?

Originally posted by The MISTER
The fact of the matter is that you are quite consistent in passing judgments on groups. Can't you see where that is a flawed practice?

Yes, I am passing judgements on those groups of Christians. I believe all humans pass judgement. I don't pretend it is a privilege only for imaginary constructs. I think it's so human that some people feel the need to pretend it's so much to handle that only an all knowing god is capable.

Originally posted by The MISTER
I can't represent all christians and you can't represent all atheists. Your beliefs about me perhaps should be directed at ME.

Then why do you argue with people once they've answered your questions?

I assure you, my beliefs about you are directed squarely AT YOU. This is why I speak to you when I'm expressing them.

Originally posted by The MISTER
I am not "You folks" and have been outside of what most people that call themselves christians believe.

I've seen none of that. I've seen you say that you do not think the story of Noah's Ark is a parable and that atheists are wrong. If there are some missing elements between those two extremes of the Christian view of those who do not agree with themselves, I apologize. However, I find it hard to believe that if you were honest in both extremes, then there isn't much missing.

Originally posted by The MISTER
I think that atheists are mistaken but I'm actually quite interested in their reasoning. What I believe is not the be all end all and I am only capable of basing it on my own personal experiences.

Fine. Be as interested or argumentative as you'd like. But when you redress the beliefs of others only to prove to them how mistaken they are or how right you are, I'll point it out.

Originally posted by The MISTER
If I told people that I don't believe that fire hurts they might dismiss me but if had experienced putting my arm in flames and not being damaged then I would never change my stance.

Feel free to share your personal experiences and direct dealins with this all powerful creator with us.

Originally posted by The MISTER
An open-minded person might not dismiss me but allow me to show them that my arm won't burn. After witnessing that an open-minded person might adjust what they believe. I have already adjusted what I believe as a result of reading the posts from those that did not dismiss me.

If I strike a match and invite you to hold it under your arm until it does not burn, then I might buy your idea that you have a more complex, obvious and special relationship with this creator god.

Originally posted by The MISTER
My opinion is that YOU are as closed-minded as I have seen on the atheist side and share more in common with religious zealots who act as if they already know everything.

You have clearly not been reading my posts. I have said repeatedly that I do not know, and that I highly doubt that you can or do know more than anyone else. I do not deal in certainty. You do. If I had not been open-minded in the past, I would have no idea what motivates you the way I have seen it motivate others. But, I have.

Originally posted by The MISTER
Your kfc link was a good example of how ridiculous your reasoning appears as it had nothing to do with a religious group, yet you used it to represent missionaries. Who's trying to piss who off? Your gender really shouldn't matter, and it is an unknown to me. You are skekung. If your user name was Mr. big d#ck I would be calling you he.

I don't think I was somehow vague about my feelings on missionaries before I posted a link, funny to you or not. You may call me mr. big dick all you like.

Originally posted by The MISTER
You're definitely doing the opposite of showcasing a lack of emotion, as you see leaving your gender open as a possible way to become pissed. You are already pissed off at "People like me" and that's glaringly obvious.

Again, for the third or fourth time, you are telling me that you've pissed me off. No such thing is hapening. No matter how many times you repeat it, it doesn't become true. If your assumption is true, how hard would it be to say my lack of anger is really just pissing you off? 'People like you', as in the christians whom you count yourself a member.

Originally posted by The MISTER
You're locked in your pessimistic way of thinking and it's not constructive at all. Asking questions is the way to learn what you don't already know but I suppose that you have already learned everything that there is to know. It's atheist and christian know-it-alls that are the cause of hatred between the two. Both speak from a position of superiority over the other. Perhaps that's why you're so persistent with your accusations. Peaceful discussion between us with no accusations or insults might be outside of your capabilities. That's a shame but I've encountered it before trying to convince christians that non-christians aren't condemned to hell.

Again, I have spent more time considering religious questions and listening to people like yourself than might seem obvious to you, simply because I didn't buy it like you did. You're calling me pessimistic because I won't agree with you.

You're approaching the situation like it's a high school football game, and accusing me of doing it. You might even be confusing this debate with the one between creationists and evolutionists. You're selling a god, but I'm not selling NO GOD. I'm selling uncertainty as normal, you're selling certainty as an excercise in free will.

Originally posted by skekUng
That would be nice, if there were no religious organizations that attempted to alter, influence and block the progression of other people's rights, while enojying their own freedoms to engage in the same kind of behavior. The very same question you ask of those with no religious beliefs could easily be asked of those who do entertain religious beliefs.

But they are all part of a religion, and we all know what they do. If religion is bad and restricts peoples freedom of belief, then why would an athirst restricts peoples freedom of belief? It seems that atheists are acting just like a religion. Perhaps religion to not to blame for the evil of the world, after all. Perhaps it is human nature to wish everyone was like you, and fanaticism that takes it to an evil.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
But they are all part of a religion, and we all know what they do. If religion is bad and restricts peoples freedom of belief, then why would an athirst restricts peoples freedom of belief? It seems that atheists are acting just like a religion. Perhaps religion to not to blame for the evil of the world, after all. Perhaps it is human nature to wish everyone was like you, and fanaticism that takes it to an evil.

It is actually the opposite of what you are proposing I said. There is a difference between crying out for everyone to agree with you-whether they want to or not- and calling for those who do believe that way to accept that not everyone has to. Their excuse is a matter of eternity or the afterlife. Mine are matters of the here and now, and each person's afterlife being left up to that person. I'm not interested in restricting their freedoms, only in them understanding that their acceptance of a particular world view does not have to be shared by everyone. I have not once called for The Mister's rights to be changed or altered to fit my own, only that his beliefs are no more important or relevant than my own. Those who believe as he does, do not, collectively, behave in such a mutually respective way.

Originally posted by skekUng
It is actually the opposite of what you are proposing I said. There is a difference between crying out for everyone to agree with you-whether they want to or not- and calling for those who do believe that way to accept that not everyone has to. Their excuse is a matter of eternity or the afterlife. Mine are matters of the here and now, and each person's afterlife being left up to that person. I'm not interested in restricting their freedoms, only in them understanding that their acceptance of a particular world view does not have to be shared by everyone. I have not once called for The Mister's rights to be changed or altered to fit my own, only that his beliefs are no more important or relevant than my own. Those who believe as he does, do not, collectively, behave in such a mutually respective way.

From my point of view, there is no such distention. In the larger general sense, they are both the same.

Also, I wasn’t talking about you. I was replying to eezy45, who said “... Just don't try to make other people do”. In context, eezy45 was telling people who are not atheists, not to convert other people to a god.

@ skekung

Perhaps I have been coming across as argumentative. If I find that I believe there is something wrong with an idea I will argue against it. If my brother was filling a gas can and asking me for a light for his cigarette I would argue that it was not a good idea. There is NO malicious intent here. To be honest I'm skeptical about there being no God because I've looked at many of the realities of this life and they all seem to be in order. The coincidences that are necessary to bring forth life from inanimate objects are outside of what could be considered realistic. A beginning and an end of everything we know exists is real. Nothing living in the reality that we can survey shows any sign of having eternal properties. The idea that energy is eternal is supported mainly because there is NO way of determining its origin and our mortality assures us that there is no way of assuring an end to anything beyond our own short lives. If we apply what is reality about beginnings then there is NO reason to assume that a starting point is unnecessary for anything in the physical world. We have used science to go back as far as the explosion of energy that birthed us but dismiss the fact that it is within our reality that the energy would REQUIRE a birth of it's own. Ignoring the evidence that the beginning of energy is outside of our scope is as simple as saying that it had no beginning. This outlook also requires ignoring the fact that we alone are discussing the beginning of energy. Not one other animal of which there are trillions has anything to contribute to this discussion. Despite hundreds of millions of supposed years of evolution we ARE alone in our discussions about anything. And we discuss every little thing. Our unique abilities give us potential access to trillions upon trillions of possibilities. One of the videos in the defining god thread made it apparent that an individual human can share billions of the creations of their mind. These strange occurrences have forced me to entertain the reality of purpose over coincidence. I'm here to see how logical my reasoning really is because if it is truly irrational then I would like to be made aware. I'm open to other ideas but I am here to discuss ideas after all.... 😮‍💨

^ In the argument of rather the universe was created by a god (A) or on its own (B), I choose no creation, or none of the above (C). That makes more sense to me.

Like the concept of God, why can't the Universe have just always existed? No creator and no beginning. I prefer that route; it eases out the middleman that is the Creator. That way we avoid all the unnecessary fees, like Judgment and Moral paradoxes. I for one can't stand being judged. That's why I disavow the existence of a Supreme Being: I'm thin-skinned.

Originally posted by The MISTER
@ skekung

Perhaps I have been coming across as argumentative. If I find that I believe there is something wrong with an idea I will argue against it. If my brother was filling a gas can and asking me for a light for his cigarette I would argue that it was not a good idea. There is NO malicious intent here. To be honest I'm skeptical about there being no God because I've looked at many of the realities of this life and they all seem to be in order. The coincidences that are necessary to bring forth life from inanimate objects are outside of what could be considered realistic. A beginning and an end of everything we know exists is real. Nothing living in the reality that we can survey shows any sign of having eternal properties. The idea that energy is eternal is supported mainly because there is NO way of determining its origin and our mortality assures us that there is no way of assuring an end to anything beyond our own short lives. If we apply what is reality about beginnings then there is NO reason to assume that a starting point is unnecessary for anything in the physical world. We have used science to go back as far as the explosion of energy that birthed us but dismiss the fact that it is within our reality that the energy would REQUIRE a birth of it's own. Ignoring the evidence that the beginning of energy is outside of our scope is as simple as saying that it had no beginning. This outlook also requires ignoring the fact that we alone are discussing the beginning of energy. Not one other animal of which there are trillions has anything to contribute to this discussion. Despite hundreds of millions of supposed years of evolution we ARE alone in our discussions about anything. And we discuss every little thing. Our unique abilities give us potential access to trillions upon trillions of possibilities. One of the videos in the defining god thread made it apparent that an individual human can share billions of the creations of their mind. These strange occurrences have forced me to entertain the reality of purpose over coincidence. I'm here to see how logical my reasoning really is because if it is truly irrational then I would like to be made aware. I'm open to other ideas but I am here to discuss ideas after all.... 😮‍💨

Thanks Kirk. You're totally right! I never really thought about any of that when reaching my conclusions!

That's a nice speech, but it's totally willfully ignorant. Basically, all those nice words and blatant misconceptions boil down to the idea that god is a balding, bearded man that makes cameo appearances at malls every December, where he asks us what we want and then judges our eternal souls based on bronze age concepts.

And before someone says that I think you shouldn't be allowed to believe Rumpelstiltskin lives under your bed and brings you chocolate candies every Boxing day as long as your finger nails are a certain length, that is not the case. I would argue your right to your beliefs just as strongly as I would my own. I just think that level of consideration should be considered and appreciated before you start to preach at people who see things differently.

Originally posted by The MISTER
@ 753

I'm not ignoring your post I'm just busy and I want to give a good response not a rushed one.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Like the concept of God, why can't the Universe have just always existed?

Empirical evidence, just for starters.

^You mean the big bang?

Yah.

Did time begin with the big bang?

Originally posted by 753
Did time begin with the big bang?

It is believed so. But in the multiverse, the big bang was just an event.

Originally posted by 753
Did time begin with the big bang?

We don't know, but it does destroy claims of a steady-state universe.

So our current knowledge of the big bang doesn't really change anything. If time began with it, there is a first cause problem and if it didn't, then the idea that universe always was in some state or another - a pre-big bang state, whatever it was could still be viewed as the universe - remains valid

Originally posted by 753
So our current knowledge of the big bang doesn't really change anything. If time began with it, there is a first cause problem and if it didn't, then the idea that universe always was in some state or another - a pre-big bang state, whatever it was could still be viewed as the universe - remains valid

That's not a very reasonable interpretation. The change was very dramatic, completely altering what was there before. It's like saying that Obama has existed from the beginning of time because he happens to be made of atoms, sure his constituent part are that old but nothing we would refer to as him is similarly ancient.

Originally posted by 753
So our current knowledge of the big bang doesn't really change anything. If time began with it, there is a first cause problem and if it didn't, then the idea that universe always was in some state or another - a pre-big bang state, whatever it was could still be viewed as the universe - remains valid

However, the multiverse is not like space. The multiverse is the product of universes, and does not exist on its own. Therefore there is no cause in the multiverse. All causes are in universes.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That's not a very reasonable interpretation. The change was very dramatic, completely altering what was there before. It's like saying that Obama has existed from the beginning of time because he happens to be made of atoms, sure his constituent part are that old but nothing we would refer to as him is similarly ancient.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
However, the multiverse is not like space. The multiverse is the product of universes, and does not exist on its own. Therefore there is no cause in the multiverse. All causes are in universes.

Ok, but that doesnt offer a concrete first cause for our universe or any other.