Are atheists afraid of judgement?

Started by Symmetric Chaos44 pages
Symmetric Chaos Fractal King
Originally posted by The MISTER
I noticed in the link in inimalist's post that the zero point energy is finite. The wiki article kept repeating it

So?

Originally posted by The MISTER
plus it referred to debate among the scientific community about the reasons for the casmir effect.

I see that someone pointed out a way to demonstrate the Casmir effect by just using the fine structure constant. Naturally I have no idea what that means (partly because FSC is such a weird concept in the first place).

Originally posted by The MISTER
A fair question...Is the Casmir effect presented by the scientific community as evidence that something comes nothing?

It is presented as one piece of evidence among many for the existence of virtual particles.

The MISTER Get mad if ya want.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Are you trying to say there are people who contest the existence of the Casmir effect? It's been done, repeatedly. This isn't some hypothetical, it's a physical thing that happens.

Uh, yeah, sure.

You can't be that skeptical about it if you think that it was the Biblical God.

And yes, we don't know what happened before the Big Bang but we do know that the common sense rule the "nothing begets nothing" is only true at the macro level, when all the effects average together to be indistinguishable from nothing. It's not a valid argument in this case.

Now you might argue that the pre-universe didn't play by the rules of quantum mechanics, but at the same time why should we think it played by the rules of human common sense? And if it was a world where nothing ever came of nothing then you still have to explain where the universe came from, if you credit it to god then you have to explain where god came from.

You're correct ( barring the bizzare nonsense crack) 😂 I have to conclude that we do reach a dead end where nobody can have an advantage. We just have differing perspectives is all. I enjoyed discussing this with you guys and you've helped me realize how much thought some atheists have put into their reasons for believing what they do. I'll keep believing what I believe as I'm sure you'll keep believing what you believe but at least I've had an opportunity to go in depth on religion without risking my job. Take it how you want it but I'm glad that more than skekung is representing for the atheist community. Many of your and others arguments are very rational considering all that we don't know. People have faith in different things but faith is just hope after all. GOOD POINTS! WELL MADE! 😮‍💨

Digi Forum Leader
Originally posted by The MISTER
You're correct ( barring the bizzare nonsense crack) 😂 I have to conclude that we do reach a dead end where nobody can have an advantage. We just have differing perspectives is all. I enjoyed discussing this with you guys and you've helped me realize how much thought some atheists have put into their reasons for believing what they do. I'll keep believing what I believe as I'm sure you'll keep believing what you believe but at least I've had an opportunity to go in depth on religion without risking my job. Take it how you want it but I'm glad that more than skekung is representing for the atheist community. Many of your and others arguments are very rational considering all that we don't know. People have faith in different things but faith is just hope after all. GOOD POINTS! WELL MADE! 😮‍💨

I'd be interested to see your response to the bulleted main points in the opening post of my atheism thread. I see too few defenses against them, instead seeing many appeals to faith or emotion, or people simply ignoring the challenges to theism.

Because you seem to be doing a good job of conceding opposing points without actually considering whether or not they should affect your own views. Cordial, but insulated.

skekUng Senior Member
Originally posted by The MISTER
Show me the contradictions.

Every time you've stated that you believe the stories in the bible are literal, in this thread and any others in which you've done it.

You're the one who said the Noah's Ark story was literal.

The MISTER Get mad if ya want.

Originally posted by skekUng
Every time you've stated that you believe the stories in the bible are literal, in this thread and any others in which you've done it.

You're the one who said the Noah's Ark story was literal.

Why is believing that a story is literal contradictory? I believe in miracles and believe existence is evidence. I have good reason to believe source of God/universe will remain mysterious/miraculous. Show me where I contradict myself, period.

The MISTER Get mad if ya want.

Originally posted by Digi
I'd be interested to see your response to the bulleted main points in the opening post of my atheism thread. I see too few defenses against them, instead seeing many appeals to faith or emotion, or people simply ignoring the challenges to theism.

Because you seem to be doing a good job of conceding opposing points without actually considering whether or not they should affect your own views. Cordial, but insulated.

Checked your thread out...thanks for the invite I'm definitely interested in dedicating some serious thought into your ideas. I've learned that I find it annoying when church leaders are vague and robotic when faced with tough questions.

King Kandy Senior Member

Originally posted by The MISTER
Why is believing that a story is literal contradictory? I believe in miracles and believe existence is evidence. I have good reason to believe source of God/universe will remain mysterious/miraculous. Show me where I contradict myself, period.

You already admitted that the science based origins for creation were plausible... what "good reason" do you have for denying them?

Saskaswan DON'T PANIC

Why is there even arguments?

Why are there people still stupid enough to believe in some fictional man who created the whole universe?

It's 2011 people, not 1102.

Lucius Unknown

Originally posted by Saskaswan
Why is there even arguments?

Why are there people still stupid enough to believe in some fictional man who created the whole universe?

It's 2011 people, not 1102.

Because humans are highly irrational and biased and seek significance for every apparently unlikely event.

skekUng Senior Member
Originally posted by The MISTER
Why is believing that a story is literal contradictory? I believe in miracles and believe existence is evidence. I have good reason to believe source of God/universe will remain mysterious/miraculous. Show me where I contradict myself, period.

How about where you state that a holy book is not necessary, but opened this thread by saying you believe in the bible and go on for 30 pages saying it is literally the word of god. You profess to need your own holy book to understand god the way you say you do. You're all over the place with your opinions, but I'm not sure you even realize that they contradict each other. That doesn't make you open-minded and thoughtful, it makes your conclusions and motivations dubious and highly questionable.

The MISTER Get mad if ya want.

Originally posted by King Kandy
You already admitted that the science based origins for creation were plausible... what "good reason" do you have for denying them?
Because science can give many details ABOUT the big bang but it does not attempt to admit understanding the origin of it. That still remains a mystery. The God/universe that needs no beginning is a fantastical idea but here we have it.

The scientific guesses that are plausible are outweighed by my personal belief that this isn't something that can be explained with man made instruments.

Coincidence is all that you have when you remove all possibility of a miracle. Something could be impossible and remain that way. In a reality like that dead things would understandably stay dead, and origins would be necessary and explainable. Coincidence can be pushed very very far but I think that I am entertaining a true fantasy when I believe that chance allows for a sudden explosion of everything that exists to have no origin. If you're familiar with the Hitch-hikers Guide to the Universe that's comparable in believing that the infinite improbability drive could be created for real. Why not? The odds will always eventually favor deviation from what normally remains scientific law.

Given this I find the fantastical nature of existence more likely to be a miracle done on purpose rather than an example of infinite improbability. I truly feel that the odds favor my belief over an existence where miracles do not exist. Good enough?

The MISTER Get mad if ya want.

Originally posted by skekUng
How about where you state that a holy book is not necessary, but opened this thread by saying you believe in the bible and go on for 30 pages saying it is literally the word of god. You profess to need your own holy book to understand god the way you say you do. You're all over the place with your opinions, but I'm not sure you even realize that they contradict each other. That doesn't make you open-minded and thoughtful, it makes your conclusions and motivations dubious and highly questionable.
Good try but you failed to point out any contradictions on my part. I never stated that anyone NEEDED any particular holy book including myself. Before I started this thread I had already considered life from the viewpoint of the completely illiterate. Which books are of use to them? Stating my faith was simply part of me introducing myself sincerely. Me referring to the Bible isn't any different than someone referring to wikipedia. The referrals themselves don't suggest that all other sources of information are wrong unless so specified but you already knew that. You're so eager to catch me in a contradiction that you'll just make them up if you have to. Also you had to ignore my earlier post explaining that I was letting my beliefs be known up front in order to question why I opened the thread how I did. I'm not sure YOU realize how my opinions contradict each other you're just sure that they must. Just like you're sure of my underhanded motives. 😈 😈
My turn...

The MISTER Get mad if ya want.

Originally posted by skekUng
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.

You would argue my right to my beliefs strongly huh?

The MISTER Get mad if ya want.

Originally posted by skekUng
Why do these simple concepts need the mythology to which you subscribe in order to exist? Why muddy moral waters with the hateful rhetoric found in so much of the bible? Why subscribe to those parts of it with the same sort of reverence with which you do the more fun, fair parts?
Is this an example of how you argue for my right to my personal beliefs? Seems more like a blatant contradiction. Ya know, the type that you keep accusing me of? I didn't even bring up the Bible in the post that yours is in response to.

Symmetric Chaos Fractal King
Originally posted by The MISTER
The odds will always eventually favor deviation from what normally remains scientific law.

New science (and I mean science not guesses made by people 5000 years ago, or even 1000 years ago) has consistently placed more and more constraints on what the universe can do and tested those constraints with greater and greater fidelity. Adding possibilities that old science specifically ruled out is almost unheard of.

The MISTER Get mad if ya want.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
New science (and I mean science not guesses made by people 5000 years ago, or even 1000 years ago) has consistently placed more and more constraints on what the universe can do and tested those constraints with greater and greater fidelity. Adding possibilities that old science specifically ruled out is almost unheard of.
Re-enforcing my rational belief that science is not likely to have a coincidence where matter explodes out of perceived non-existence for an unknowable reason. I hope that doesn't seem like nonsense but finding out that the rules of the universe remain constant and provably constant strengthens my belief that science deals with realistic odds and coincidences. A miracle based existence supports an origin that is unexplainable/miraculous.

skekUng Senior Member
Originally posted by The MISTER
Is this an example of how you argue for my right to my personal beliefs? Seems more like a blatant contradiction. Ya know, the type that you keep accusing me of? I didn't even bring up the Bible in the post that yours is in response to.

It's hard to call three questions an argument against your right to your expression or your beliefs. The argument depends on your answers.

skekUng Senior Member
Originally posted by The MISTER
Why is believing that a story is literal contradictory? I believe in miracles and believe existence is evidence. I have good reason to believe source of God/universe will remain mysterious/miraculous. Show me where I contradict myself, period.

See, that is the entire basis for why I approach you like I do; you espouse anectdotes as fact and dismiss fact in favor of mythology. If you literally subscribe to the bible, then you must, by virtue of that position, dismiss so much that flies in the face of the bible's statements of fact.

How is anyone supposed to think you don't intentionally reach conclusions based on one, while also considering all of the other?

The MISTER Get mad if ya want.

Originally posted by skekUng
See, that is the entire basis for why I approach you like I do; you espouse anectdotes as fact and dismiss fact in favor of mythology. If you literally subscribe to the bible, then you must, by virtue of that position, dismiss so much that flies in the face of the bible's statements of fact.

How is anyone supposed to think you don't intentionally reach conclusions based on one, while also considering all of the other?

Well you don't have to approach me like that anymore. It's a damn disgrace because we probably agree on more things than we disagree on. I saw the exact type of bait thread that you were speaking about and now know why you might have suspected this from me. Forget baiting people and trying to convince them of their agreeing with you when they obviously don't. That's not for me and it doesn't seem like it's for you either. I don't conform to what most people of faith in spirituality believe. I don't dismiss science and I don't dismiss my own beliefs because of science. The two teachings are totally separate from each other. Where they differ is in the delivery. Spiritual teachings are taught as truths and science is taught as circumstantial, entertaining the idea that the unknown may cause what we believe to be true to actually be false. The outcome is that believers of spiritual teachings feel as though they have truths that non-believers don't. In actuality they share the same ignorance of what the future holds as the non-believers. Since that is the reality I see no need for us to keep butting heads as if there is a huge difference between us. If you don't agree with my take on things that's fine with me. I expect people to hold fast to what they believe just like I do. I'm not into tricking people into agreeing with me.

The example you used about the mormons you spoke to in the parking lot reminds me of how I used to invite JW's in the house for discussion. They eventually found out that they lacked evidence for me to believe that they were better than everyone else. I don't believe that anyone's better than anyone else and share your distaste for groups that perpetuate that notion. I do think that some atheists may think that they are better than believers of spirituality but what I've found is that many are very humble due to their beliefs. Finding that out was quite comforting and makes me glad that I was wrong about the rationality of atheists. You're all right Skekung, just lighten up a bit!
Not everyone who believes in the Bible is trying to convert you! Just as I'm sure you were sincere when you stated that you would fight for a persons rights to believe as they please rather than make them believe as you do.

Just to clarify: Noahs Ark and the flood are stories about miracles of the past. The big bang is a story about a miracle of the past. All that's required for both to have occurred is for humans to be flawed somehow in their dating the past. That is how I perceive these two stories each having different sources. Dismissing something as mythology may be your approach but I like to entertain whether any statement is rational no matter what the source is. I seek truths despite the idea that everything is relative. I believe that seeking truths is important. I can't know everything but I'd like to learn as much as I can. Sorry if you still think I have some desire to convert atheists but I can assure you I really don't want to. I just wanted to find out why they believed there was no God and threw out the most logical reason I could think of. I had heard the idea presented to me that a loving God wouldn't torture their children for eternity. That led me to ask whether this was a main reason for disbelief. As it turned out this does not seem to be the case. Thanks for your input. Peace. 😎

skekUng Senior Member

Am I supposed to scream out the hidden name of god, or something?