Atheism; An Intellectual Dead End

[Constructive Anarchy]

It's embarrassing to watch you go through these semantic contortions to no effect. I'm sure it's very difficult for you to hear that your primitive form of thought is based on the same kind of blind faith that has driven men for many centuries.

It would be, if that were true. Since you cannot provide the examples that I asked for, one can only assume it is because you kinow you can't. That is the difference between faith, and observation. You have faith that your mythical God will answer all of your que that thestions in your mythical afterlife, whereas I observe that actual science answers quetions we have about the universe here and now, given time, and resources.

I look forward to the day when science can answer this question: What happened on the Tuesday before the big bang?

Science has answered that question: It has said that those who think the universe began with the explosion of a singularity are wrong. Your patience was rewarded.

My patience is supposed to be rewarded with no answer?

When you ask the wtrong question? Yes. You want to know what happened before an event that never took place. Nothing happened, because the event to which you refer (the Big Bang) never occurred in the first place. What happened on the Tuesday before the Big Bang? Nothing. Because there was no Tuesday before the Big Bang, because there was no Big Bang.

There wasn't? Do mean to say Einstein was correct when he told LeMaitre the universe was static?

 

[ding]

Based on that simple logic: You have faith that science can answer every unresolved question, eventually.

No. Based on that logic I have observed that science answers every unresolved question, eventually. I'm sorry that you are so ashamed of the fact that you allow emotion to override reason that you wnat to cram everyone into your tiny little worldview with you, but those of us who realy on reason, rationality, and science have no need for "fatih". We will leave that you you theists, and your imaginary gods.

The problem is there is no question and answer you can come up with that will prove God doesn't exist. When it can defy all logic and requires no proof what chance do you have?

That's just it; I don't have to prove non-existence. In science non-existence is the standard. It's called the null hypothosis. The null hypothesis is generally assumed to be true until evidence indicates otherwise. God is presumed to not exist, until objective evidence proves otherwise.

And you will never find that evidence unless you go looking for it which is why you are intellectually dead.

That's called confirmation bias. You do not go looking for evidence to fit a preconcieved belief. You allow the evidence that exists to lead you to a conclussion. Intellectual death is abandonning reason, and trying to force evidence to support a belief that it does not support.

I can make the exact same argument about you. It is only confirmation bias if subjectivity is used. My point was that if you never test your beliefs you are confirming your bias. You practice critical theory which is the practice to criticize what you don't believe to validate what you do believe. That process is inherently flawed. You are confirming your bias. To not confirm you bias you must objectively try to prove your beliefs wrong as I have done.

 

[ding]

I believe the point of this thread is that atheism is intellectually dead because atheism prevents people from intellectually exploring the existence of God. They are like religious fanatics in this regard.

The point is wrong. Intellectual exploration requires objective evidence. Present objective evidence to the existence of God, and all atheists will universally abandon atheism. No one has yet to provide that objective evidence.

I disagree. The fact that you don't explore what you don't know proves you are intellectually dead. Intellectual death is the end of exploring for knowledge. You are intellectually dead. You are stuck on confirmation bias. You justify your beliefs by criticizing what you don't believe without ever testing the validity of your belief. I don't know how many more ways I can tell you this.

 

[Czernobog]

It would be, if that were true. Since you cannot provide the examples that I asked for, one can only assume it is because you kinow you can't. That is the difference between faith, and observation. You have faith that your mythical God will answer all of your que that thestions in your mythical afterlife, whereas I observe that actual science answers quetions we have about the universe here and now, given time, and resources.

I look forward to the day when science can answer this question: What happened on the Tuesday before the big bang?

Science has answered that question: It has said that those who think the universe began with the explosion of a singularity are wrong. Your patience was rewarded.

My patience is supposed to be rewarded with no answer?

When you ask the wtrong question? Yes. You want to know what happened before an event that never took place. Nothing happened, because the event to which you refer (the Big Bang) never occurred in the first place. What happened on the Tuesday before the Big Bang? Nothing. Because there was no Tuesday before the Big Bang, because there was no Big Bang.

There wasn't? Do mean to say Einstein was correct when he told LeMaitre the universe was static?

No. We have moved beyond an Einsteinian understanding of the cosmos. I have already presented the latest understanding of the universe - including the new model using Bomian trajectories, replacing outdated geodesics. If you truly want to understand the nature of the universe, I suggest you start by looking at quantum physics. It's not static, it cyclical - a closed loop. No beginning, and no end. And no need for God.

 

[Constructive Anarchy]

I look forward to the day when science can answer this question: What happened on the Tuesday before the big bang?

Science has answered that question: It has said that those who think the universe began with the explosion of a singularity are wrong. Your patience was rewarded.

My patience is supposed to be rewarded with no answer?

When you ask the wtrong question? Yes. You want to know what happened before an event that never took place. Nothing happened, because the event to which you refer (the Big Bang) never occurred in the first place. What happened on the Tuesday before the Big Bang? Nothing. Because there was no Tuesday before the Big Bang, because there was no Big Bang.

There wasn't? Do mean to say Einstein was correct when he told LeMaitre the universe was static?

No. We have moved beyond an Einsteinian understanding of the cosmos. I have already presented the latest understanding of the universe - including the new model using Bomian trajectories, replacing outdated geodesics. If you truly want to understand the nature of the universe, I suggest you start by looking at quantum physics. It's not static, it cyclical - a closed loop. No beginning, and no end. And no need for God.

You've evidently missed the fact that you're talking about theoretical quantum physics.

 

[Constructive Anarchy]

It's embarrassing to watch you go through these semantic contortions to no effect. I'm sure it's very difficult for you to hear that your primitive form of thought is based on the same kind of blind faith that has driven men for many centuries.

It would be, if that were true. Since you cannot provide the examples that I asked for, one can only assume it is because you kinow you can't. That is the difference between faith, and observation. You have faith that your mythical God will answer all of your questions in your mythical afterlife, whereas I observe that actual science answers quetions we have about the universe here and now, given time, and resources.

Based on that simple logic: You have faith that science can answer every unresolved question, eventually.

No. Based on that logic I have observed that science answers every unresolved question, eventually. I'm sorry that you are so ashamed of the fact that you allow emotion to override reason that you wnat to cram everyone into your tiny little worldview with you, but those of us who realy on reason, rationality, and science have no need for "fatih". We will leave that you you theists, and your imaginary gods.

The problem is there is no question and answer you can come up with that will prove God doesn't exist. When it can defy all logic and requires no proof what chance do you have?

That's just it; I don't have to prove non-existence. In science non-existence is the standard. It's called the null hypothosis. The null hypothesis is generally assumed to be true until evidence indicates otherwise. God is presumed to not exist, until objective evidence proves otherwise.

It's apparent to me that your knowledge of science is all superficial. Therefore any conclusions you might draw are based on your "faith" in scientific method.

 

[BreezeWood]

It is a distinction with a difference. The distinction makes it not a statement of faith, but of fact. Science can explain everything, as demonstrated over centuries of...well...explaining everythin. Every single phenomenon that religion tried to insist was suernatural? Science expalined without resorting to myths, fables, and the supernatural. So, yeah. It's not a statement of faith; it is a statement of fact based on centuries of demonstrated evidence.

Uh huh, sounds so much different from : God can explain everything, eventually.

And, by all means, please demonstrate any monotheistic religion that says that. Not "will", when we "stand before him", but can and does now".

It's embarrassing to watch you go through these semantic contortions to no effect. I'm sure it's very difficult for you to hear that your primitive form of thought is based on the same kind of blind faith that has driven men for many centuries.

It would be, if that were true. Since you cannot provide the examples that I asked for, one can only assume it is because you kinow you can't. That is the difference between faith, and observation. You have faith that your mythical God will answer all of your questions in your mythical afterlife, whereas I observe that actual science answers quetions we have about the universe here and now, given time, and resources.

I look forward to the day when science can answer this question: What happened on the Tuesday before the big bang?

.

I look forward to the day when science can answer this question: What happened on the Tuesday before the big bang?

BB is cyclical.

.

 

[ding]

Uh huh, sounds so much different from : God can explain everything, eventually.

And, by all means, please demonstrate any monotheistic religion that says that. Not "will", when we "stand before him", but can and does now".

It's embarrassing to watch you go through these semantic contortions to no effect. I'm sure it's very difficult for you to hear that your primitive form of thought is based on the same kind of blind faith that has driven men for many centuries.

It would be, if that were true. Since you cannot provide the examples that I asked for, one can only assume it is because you kinow you can't. That is the difference between faith, and observation. You have faith that your mythical God will answer all of your questions in your mythical afterlife, whereas I observe that actual science answers quetions we have about the universe here and now, given time, and resources.

I look forward to the day when science can answer this question: What happened on the Tuesday before the big bang?

.

I look forward to the day when science can answer this question: What happened on the Tuesday before the big bang?

BB is cyclical.

.

You know this how?

 

[BreezeWood]

And, by all means, please demonstrate any monotheistic religion that says that. Not "will", when we "stand before him", but can and does now".

It's embarrassing to watch you go through these semantic contortions to no effect. I'm sure it's very difficult for you to hear that your primitive form of thought is based on the same kind of blind faith that has driven men for many centuries.

It would be, if that were true. Since you cannot provide the examples that I asked for, one can only assume it is because you kinow you can't. That is the difference between faith, and observation. You have faith that your mythical God will answer all of your questions in your mythical afterlife, whereas I observe that actual science answers quetions we have about the universe here and now, given time, and resources.

Based on that simple logic: You have faith that science can answer every unresolved question, eventually.

No. Based on that logic I have observed that science answers every unresolved question, eventually. I'm sorry that you are so ashamed of the fact that you allow emotion to override reason that you wnat to cram everyone into your tiny little worldview with you, but those of us who realy on reason, rationality, and science have no need for "fatih". We will leave that you you theists, and your imaginary gods.

The problem is there is no question and answer you can come up with that will prove God doesn't exist. When it can defy all logic and requires no proof what chance do you have?

.

The problem is there is no question and answer you can come up with that will prove God doesn't exist. When it can defy all logic and requires no proof what chance do you have?

one can prove christianity does not exist by removing its literature.

.

 

[BreezeWood]

And, by all means, please demonstrate any monotheistic religion that says that. Not "will", when we "stand before him", but can and does now".

It's embarrassing to watch you go through these semantic contortions to no effect. I'm sure it's very difficult for you to hear that your primitive form of thought is based on the same kind of blind faith that has driven men for many centuries.

It would be, if that were true. Since you cannot provide the examples that I asked for, one can only assume it is because you kinow you can't. That is the difference between faith, and observation. You have faith that your mythical God will answer all of your questions in your mythical afterlife, whereas I observe that actual science answers quetions we have about the universe here and now, given time, and resources.

I look forward to the day when science can answer this question: What happened on the Tuesday before the big bang?

.

I look forward to the day when science can answer this question: What happened on the Tuesday before the big bang?

BB is cyclical.

.

You know this how?

.

You know this how?

the observation of expansion from a central source, all matter is traveling at a finite angle - the matter will return to its origin as a mirror image causing recompaction till the new singularity again causes its expansion. Boomerang Theory.

.

 

[BreezeWood]

And, by all means, please demonstrate any monotheistic religion that says that. Not "will", when we "stand before him", but can and does now".

It's embarrassing to watch you go through these semantic contortions to no effect. I'm sure it's very difficult for you to hear that your primitive form of thought is based on the same kind of blind faith that has driven men for many centuries.

It would be, if that were true. Since you cannot provide the examples that I asked for, one can only assume it is because you kinow you can't. That is the difference between faith, and observation. You have faith that your mythical God will answer all of your questions in your mythical afterlife, whereas I observe that actual science answers quetions we have about the universe here and now, given time, and resources.

Based on that simple logic: You have faith that science can answer every unresolved question, eventually.

No. Based on that logic I have observed that science answers every unresolved question, eventually. I'm sorry that you are so ashamed of the fact that you allow emotion to override reason that you wnat to cram everyone into your tiny little worldview with you, but those of us who realy on reason, rationality, and science have no need for "fatih". We will leave that you you theists, and your imaginary gods.

Science proves many things. For example: Did you know that neuroscientists have recently come to some interesting conclusions about human brain activity based on extensive research experimentation? It's now demonstrably certain that every human decision is influenced by emotion to one degree or another. Based on the available science: How do you know your own perceptions and thought processes aren't significantly influenced by your own emotional reactions to religion and faith?

.

Based on the available science: How do you know your own perceptions and thought processes aren't significantly influenced by your own emotional reactions to religion and faith?

ask anyone, I have been saying for years thought is not physiological CNS (central nervous system) you are the first at least to see light - unless you are typical fanatic that Flora is not an aspiring and emotional living being admissible to the Everlasting.

nor chemo either. knowledge for the physiological genome is a dimension.

.

 

[ding]

It's embarrassing to watch you go through these semantic contortions to no effect. I'm sure it's very difficult for you to hear that your primitive form of thought is based on the same kind of blind faith that has driven men for many centuries.

It would be, if that were true. Since you cannot provide the examples that I asked for, one can only assume it is because you kinow you can't. That is the difference between faith, and observation. You have faith that your mythical God will answer all of your questions in your mythical afterlife, whereas I observe that actual science answers quetions we have about the universe here and now, given time, and resources.

I look forward to the day when science can answer this question: What happened on the Tuesday before the big bang?

.

I look forward to the day when science can answer this question: What happened on the Tuesday before the big bang?

BB is cyclical.

.

You know this how?

.

You know this how?

the observation of expansion from a central source, all matter is traveling at a finite angle - the matter will return to its origin as a mirror image causing recompaction till the new singularity again causes its expansion. Boomerang Theory.

.

I see. And your proof for this is what?

 

[ding]

It's embarrassing to watch you go through these semantic contortions to no effect. I'm sure it's very difficult for you to hear that your primitive form of thought is based on the same kind of blind faith that has driven men for many centuries.

It would be, if that were true. Since you cannot provide the examples that I asked for, one can only assume it is because you kinow you can't. That is the difference between faith, and observation. You have faith that your mythical God will answer all of your questions in your mythical afterlife, whereas I observe that actual science answers quetions we have about the universe here and now, given time, and resources.

Based on that simple logic: You have faith that science can answer every unresolved question, eventually.

No. Based on that logic I have observed that science answers every unresolved question, eventually. I'm sorry that you are so ashamed of the fact that you allow emotion to override reason that you wnat to cram everyone into your tiny little worldview with you, but those of us who realy on reason, rationality, and science have no need for "fatih". We will leave that you you theists, and your imaginary gods.

The problem is there is no question and answer you can come up with that will prove God doesn't exist. When it can defy all logic and requires no proof what chance do you have?

.

The problem is there is no question and answer you can come up with that will prove God doesn't exist. When it can defy all logic and requires no proof what chance do you have?

one can prove christianity does not exist by removing its literature.

.

You mean historical revisionism, right?

 

[Czernobog]

Science has answered that question: It has said that those who think the universe began with the explosion of a singularity are wrong. Your patience was rewarded.

My patience is supposed to be rewarded with no answer?

When you ask the wtrong question? Yes. You want to know what happened before an event that never took place. Nothing happened, because the event to which you refer (the Big Bang) never occurred in the first place. What happened on the Tuesday before the Big Bang? Nothing. Because there was no Tuesday before the Big Bang, because there was no Big Bang.

There wasn't? Do mean to say Einstein was correct when he told LeMaitre the universe was static?

No. We have moved beyond an Einsteinian understanding of the cosmos. I have already presented the latest understanding of the universe - including the new model using Bomian trajectories, replacing outdated geodesics. If you truly want to understand the nature of the universe, I suggest you start by looking at quantum physics. It's not static, it cyclical - a closed loop. No beginning, and no end. And no need for God.

You've evidently missed the fact that you're talking about theoretical quantum physics.

You've apparently missed the fact that your "Big Bang" is just as theoretical. That's the thing about theories; they are held until evidence supports discording them for a more accurate theory. "Big Bang" is yeaterday, and doesn't fit with new understanding of cosmic phenomenon. Quantum loop is the new theory that better fits with observable phenomenon.

 

[Czernobog]

It would be, if that were true. Since you cannot provide the examples that I asked for, one can only assume it is because you kinow you can't. That is the difference between faith, and observation. You have faith that your mythical God will answer all of your questions in your mythical afterlife, whereas I observe that actual science answers quetions we have about the universe here and now, given time, and resources.

Based on that simple logic: You have faith that science can answer every unresolved question, eventually.

No. Based on that logic I have observed that science answers every unresolved question, eventually. I'm sorry that you are so ashamed of the fact that you allow emotion to override reason that you wnat to cram everyone into your tiny little worldview with you, but those of us who realy on reason, rationality, and science have no need for "fatih". We will leave that you you theists, and your imaginary gods.

The problem is there is no question and answer you can come up with that will prove God doesn't exist. When it can defy all logic and requires no proof what chance do you have?

That's just it; I don't have to prove non-existence. In science non-existence is the standard. It's called the null hypothosis. The null hypothesis is generally assumed to be true until evidence indicates otherwise. God is presumed to not exist, until objective evidence proves otherwise.

It's apparent to me that your knowledge of science is all superficial. Therefore any conclusions you might draw are based on your "faith" in scientific method.

Says the guy who is holding on to outdated theories.

 

[Czernobog]

And, by all means, please demonstrate any monotheistic religion that says that. Not "will", when we "stand before him", but can and does now".

It's embarrassing to watch you go through these semantic contortions to no effect. I'm sure it's very difficult for you to hear that your primitive form of thought is based on the same kind of blind faith that has driven men for many centuries.

It would be, if that were true. Since you cannot provide the examples that I asked for, one can only assume it is because you kinow you can't. That is the difference between faith, and observation. You have faith that your mythical God will answer all of your questions in your mythical afterlife, whereas I observe that actual science answers quetions we have about the universe here and now, given time, and resources.

Based on that simple logic: You have faith that science can answer every unresolved question, eventually.

No. Based on that logic I have observed that science answers every unresolved question, eventually. I'm sorry that you are so ashamed of the fact that you allow emotion to override reason that you wnat to cram everyone into your tiny little worldview with you, but those of us who realy on reason, rationality, and science have no need for "fatih". We will leave that you you theists, and your imaginary gods.

Science proves many things. For example: Did you know that neuroscientists have recently come to some interesting conclusions about human brain activity based on extensive research experimentation? It's now demonstrably certain that every human decision is influenced by emotion to one degree or another. Based on the available science: How do you know your own perceptions and thought processes aren't significantly influenced by your own emotional reactions to religion and faith?

Care to provide a source for the research that suggests every decision is based on emotion?Contrary to your misconception, I have no emtional reaction to religion, or faith. The only one here trying to irrationally assign "faith" to observation is you.

 

[BreezeWood]

It would be, if that were true. Since you cannot provide the examples that I asked for, one can only assume it is because you kinow you can't. That is the difference between faith, and observation. You have faith that your mythical God will answer all of your questions in your mythical afterlife, whereas I observe that actual science answers quetions we have about the universe here and now, given time, and resources.

I look forward to the day when science can answer this question: What happened on the Tuesday before the big bang?

.

I look forward to the day when science can answer this question: What happened on the Tuesday before the big bang?

BB is cyclical.

.

You know this how?

.

You know this how?

the observation of expansion from a central source, all matter is traveling at a finite angle - the matter will return to its origin as a mirror image causing recompaction till the new singularity again causes its expansion. Boomerang Theory.

.

I see. And your proof for this is what?

.

I see. And your proof for this is what?

ask the gunnery sargent, trajectory in a vacuum from a spherical expulsion .... how about it engineer, is all matter traveling in a straight line or en/mass accelerating to reconvene in unison 0.5(X)APEX (finite angle). the universe within the Cosmos.

.

.

 

[BreezeWood]

It would be, if that were true. Since you cannot provide the examples that I asked for, one can only assume it is because you kinow you can't. That is the difference between faith, and observation. You have faith that your mythical God will answer all of your questions in your mythical afterlife, whereas I observe that actual science answers quetions we have about the universe here and now, given time, and resources.

Based on that simple logic: You have faith that science can answer every unresolved question, eventually.

No. Based on that logic I have observed that science answers every unresolved question, eventually. I'm sorry that you are so ashamed of the fact that you allow emotion to override reason that you wnat to cram everyone into your tiny little worldview with you, but those of us who realy on reason, rationality, and science have no need for "fatih". We will leave that you you theists, and your imaginary gods.

The problem is there is no question and answer you can come up with that will prove God doesn't exist. When it can defy all logic and requires no proof what chance do you have?

.

The problem is there is no question and answer you can come up with that will prove God doesn't exist. When it can defy all logic and requires no proof what chance do you have?

one can prove christianity does not exist by removing its literature.

.

You mean historical revisionism, right?

.

You mean historical revisionism, right?

I'm serious bing, what are you that you have not read ... the spoken religion is the only means for communication with the Almighty. there is no intermediator. your book.

.

 

[sealybobo]

I am an athiest. I simply do not believe in supernatural entities, gods, angels, demons supernatural events or anything of that sort. My attitude is that science can explain everything, eventually.

And some things science will never be able to explain.

And your evidence of this is? I'm sure there was a time when people thought it would be impossible to find a rational, scientific reason for the sun rising, or for "demon possession". Yet, eventually, it did - orbits, and epilepsy. Observation, and experience demonstrates that science has always found rational explanations for everything that was once thought "supernatural".

I think God is impossible to disprove. They'll never prove he exists either because he doesnt

That was hilarious. Do you understand what you just wrote? Your statement should be the poster child for confirmation bias.

Let me know the day my comment is proven wrong.

And as for atheism being a dead end. That's life. All life leads to a dead end.

Atheism teaches us to appreciate the time you have now. Don't cope with a shitty life in hopes of an afterlife. That's what religion asks you to do.

What you pray for God will give go be able to cope in this world we live

She should have been praying to change her woes not cope with them. Anyways it's an arrestive development song and the lyrics stuck.

 

[sealybobo]

I believe the point of this thread is that atheism is intellectually dead because atheism prevents people from intellectually exploring the existence of God. They are like religious fanatics in this regard.

On the contrary. We've thought it all the way through. Most of us at one time believed a god existed even if we had problems with religion.

Evolution of atheism goes

1. Born and raised religious.
2. Young adult having a problem with religions but still believe a God exist
3. Agnostic
4. Agnostic atheist
5. Atheist.

It's what a smart human becomes. No magical thinking, wishful thinking, cognitive dissonance, cherry picking.

And knowing all that had to happen for you to have been born. I feel so lucky.

And we are OK saying we don't know.

All we know is like you don't buy Islam or Mormon bs, we reject your stories too. You don't call out Mormons because their delusion is harmless or so you think.

There's another phase it's the guilt an atheist feels when he stops talking to God. The first few times you feel guilty but if you truly believe it's nonsense then you have to stop talking to God. Stop sucking your thumb.

I love how sad no God would make people who choose to believe. Cute. Innocent lil lambs