Atheism is the believe that something came out of nothing and we're all going nowhere

[ding]

Atheism does not lead to communism. Militant atheism leads to communism. There is a distinction.

That's funny. I don't recall any of those quotes you provided mentioning "militant" atheism (whatever that supposedly is) -- only "atheism." Apparently, it's a distinction that matters only when it suits your purposes.

Thanks for wasting our time...

 

[ding]

Atheism does not lead to communism. Militant atheism leads to communism. There is a distinction.

That's funny. I don't recall any of those quotes you provided mentioning "militant" atheism (whatever that supposedly is) -- only "atheism." Apparently, it's a distinction that matters only when it suits your purposes.

Thanks for wasting our time...

You are not very observant then, now are you? Do you see it now?

In fact, as I look at your response in post #26, I can even see where you typed in the words "militant atheism." So you either have zero recall or you are dishonest or both.

 

[sealybobo]

And there's no point, really, to any of it, so life has no meaning or purpose.

Exactly! So enjoy it while it lasts. You are very lucky to have been born. Most of our parents had 1 or 2 more kids because economically they couldn't afford more. They could have all had 5 more kids but they didn't. Brothers and sisters that will never live. I wonder what they would have looked like? So we are very lucky.

But what is the purposee of life? If any purpose life is a way for the universe to know itself.

Maybe we don't know our purpose yet. Do you? What is the purpose?

 

[Paladin_]

You are not very observant then, now are you? Do you see it now?

In fact, as I look at your response in post #26, I can even see where you typed in the words "militant atheism." So you either have zero recall or you are dishonest or both.

Ding, the question isn't whether or not I mentioned "militant atheism." It's whether the quotes you offered as supposed "evidence" mentioned it. I see they didn't.

Zero recall and dishonesty, indeed!

 

[ding]

You are not very observant then, now are you? Do you see it now?

In fact, as I look at your response in post #26, I can even see where you typed in the words "militant atheism." So you either have zero recall or you are dishonest or both.

Ding, the question isn't whether or not I mentioned "militant atheism." It's whether the quotes you offered as supposed "evidence" mentioned it. I see they didn't.

Zero recall and dishonesty, indeed!

My goodness, really? You do like to quibble, don't you. In post #35 I quoted Zhou Weiqun, China's chairman of the Committee on Ethnic and Religious Affairs who said, "The Communist Party of China (CPC) is letting its members know that the party’s official adherence to militant atheism has not changed;"

In post # 32 I quoted Vladimir Lenin who said, "A Marxist must be a materialist, i. e., an enemy of religion, but a dialectical materialist, i. e., one who treats the struggle against religion not in an abstract way, not on the basis of remote, purely theoretical, never varying preaching, but in a concrete way, on the basis of the class struggle which is going on in practice and is educating the masses more and better than anything else could."

You don't have to wonder what a militant atheist is anymore, Vladimir Lenin is telling you what a militant atheist is. A militant atheist is one who attacks religion in a concrete way.

I'm sure you will quibble some more.

 

[Paladin_]

It appears I'm not the ONLY one who likes to "quibble," considering your fixation on the issue of heart function in a thread about whether the dead have any cognizance of their death. ;-)

As for your quotes, I stand corrected. You DID offer ONE quote mentioning "militant atheism." (Incidentally, I suppose I meet Lenin's criteria, as I'm an atheist who DEFINITELY attacks religion in a "concrete way.")

In any case, as you say, that's a minor quibble. My original point -- that you've failed to demonstrate your ridiculous assertion that "militant atheism leads to communism" -- still stands.

 

[danielpalos]

And there's no point, really, to any of it, so life has no meaning or purpose.

Not resorting to fallacy, has purpose.

Unlike crony, practitioners of the abomination of hypocrisy. Even true Atheists make better citizens than false religionists.

 

[Czernobog]

Hmmmm... actually space time had a beginning. We know this because of the 2nd Law of thermodynamics and the general theory of relativity. What started it is beyond science. What happened after it can be studied. Those studies show that the universe started in a hot dense state that occupied the space of “roughly a million billion billion times smaller than a single atom.” All of the models show this. Every single one. Why? Because that is what fits the observable data so all of the models model to this. That's called history matching. Now some people will try to claim that it is a cyclical process, but that is bullshit because the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics tells us that the universe cannot be infinite because as time approaches infinity, usable energy approaches zero. Now this does not mean the 1st Law of Thermodynamics is violated. Why? Because just because there is no more usable energy that does not mean that that energy is not accounted for. It is accounted for. It is still in the material balance. It just means everything is at the same temperature. So what we know is this... Matter evolved from subatomic particles into beings that know and create and the universe became self aware. The potential for this existed at the beginning. It occurred as a result of the laws of nature which came into existence when space and time were created. In effect beings that know and create were predestined the moment space and time came into existence.

Space and time had a beginning, but not energy, therefore since energy IS something there always was something and there always will be something. Claiming that space and time had a beginning does not prove energy had a beginning.

Actually even the statement "Space and Time had a beginning" is a presumption. This universe as we know it had a beginning. However, to definitively state that all of time and space began with the beginning of this universe is, in fact, a presumptive statement without quantitative evidence.

Not according to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. According to that, the universe had a beginning as it is impossible for the universe to be infinite acting.

See the 4 minute mark for this discussion.

The problem is that, even Einstein acknowledged that the closer one came to the event horizon of the universe, the more the laws of physics themselves begin to break down. So, how can you be certain that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics holds true all the way back to the very foundation of the universe?

It is after the event horizon (i.e. during the expansion) that entropy increases and the usable energy of the closed system (i.e. the universe) decreases. So if the universe were to collapse back upon itself and the cycle of expansion and contraction were to repeat infinitely eventually there would be no more usable energy available, unless of course one wants to violate the First Law of Thermodynamics and add more energy to the closed system (i.e. the universe). Of course this would mean that we would still need to explain the source (i.e. the first cause) of where that energy came from.

Your are talking about the end of this universe. That was not what I referred to. Go back, re-read my first statement, and try again.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[ding]

It appears I'm not the ONLY one who likes to "quibble," considering your fixation on the issue of heart function in a thread about whether the dead have any cognizance of their death. ;-)

As for your quotes, I stand corrected. You DID offer ONE quote mentioning "militant atheism." (Incidentally, I suppose I meet Lenin's criteria, as I'm an atheist who DEFINITELY attacks religion in a "concrete way.")

In any case, as you say, that's a minor quibble. My original point -- that you've failed to demonstrate your ridiculous assertion that "militant atheism leads to communism" -- still stands.

I have proven that militant atheism leads to communism beyond a shadow of doubt.

 

[Czernobog]

It appears I'm not the ONLY one who likes to "quibble," considering your fixation on the issue of heart function in a thread about whether the dead have any cognizance of their death. ;-)

As for your quotes, I stand corrected. You DID offer ONE quote mentioning "militant atheism." (Incidentally, I suppose I meet Lenin's criteria, as I'm an atheist who DEFINITELY attacks religion in a "concrete way.")

In any case, as you say, that's a minor quibble. My original point -- that you've failed to demonstrate your ridiculous assertion that "militant atheism leads to communism" -- still stands.

I have proven that militant atheism leads to communism beyond a shadow of doubt.

Actual what you demonstrated was a correlation between Lenin, communism, and atheism. Was Lenin an atheist first, or a Communist first? And what evidence do you offer to support your response? In fact, the quote from Lenin that you supplied seems to suggest the opposite of what you are claiming - rather than atheism leading to Communism, Lenin seems to be suggesting that it is Communism that demands its ideological adherents adopt a version of atheism. That is the exact opposite of what you have been claiming.

 

[Paladin_]

I have proven that militant atheism leads to communism beyond a shadow of doubt.

Well, you can continue to claim that, but you haven't proven anything beyond mere correlation.

 

[Czernobog]

I have proven that militant atheism leads to communism beyond a shadow of doubt.

Well, you can continue to claim that, but you haven't proven anything beyond mere correlation.

He, in fact, seems to have proven the opposite. Both his quote from Weiquin, and the one from Lenin, seem to be suggesting, quite contrary to what Ding is trying to claim, that their ideologies demand that any adherents to their ideologies must adopt atheism as their theologies. Ding, on the other hand, keeps insisting that the opposite is true - that atheists - oh, I'm sorry, militant atheists - naturally gravitate toward the Communist ideology.

 

[edthecynic]

So if the universe were to collapse back upon itself and the cycle of expansion and contraction were to repeat infinitely eventually there would be no more usable energy available

Expansion and contraction involve motion, and kinetic energy is the energy of motion and is a usable energy and therefore as long as expansion and contraction continue there will be a supply of usable energy!

 

[edthecynic]

So you saying that perpetual motion is possible.

In nature, YES! In man made machines, NO. There is a difference.
Take for instance a stable nonradioactive atom, if the entropy of the electron orbiting the nucleus was greater than zero then it would constantly be slowing down and would not be able to maintain its orbital distance from the nucleus and would be drawn in and split the nucleus and no matter would exist. The entropy of the electron is zero and will orbit perpetually unless acted on by an outside force.

 

[Fenton Lum]

And there's no point, really, to any of it, so life has no meaning or purpose.

Just because someone decides that they have no use for any of the male dominator god religions that the middle east vomited up is no indication they have no spiritual path or no belief in a creator. And atheists might well accept evolution as to how “something” came from your “nothing.

You really are hung up on this male dominator thing. Do you and Breezewood coordinate your one trick ponies?

It is rather the followers of these male dominator god religions that are hung up on "the thing".

 

[Paladin_]

He, in fact, seems to have proven the opposite. Both his quote from Weiquin, and the one from Lenin, seem to be suggesting, quite contrary to what Ding is trying to claim, that their ideologies demand that any adherents to their ideologies must adopt atheism as their theologies. Ding, on the other hand, keeps insisting that the opposite is true - that atheists - oh, I'm sorry, militant atheists - naturally gravitate toward the Communist ideology.

That's actually an excellent point, Czernobog. One that hadn't occurred to me. In the meantime, it seems that, unfortunately, we've long abandoned the original theme of this thread, which is the dubious proposition that "atheism is the belief that something came out of nothing and that we're all going nowhere."

 

[there4eyeM]

"But what is the purposee (sic) of life? If any purpose life is a way for the universe to know itself."

Have people considered this?

 

[Wry Catcher]

And there's no point, really, to any of it, so life has no meaning or purpose.

LOL

As long as humans have been trying to make sense of the universe, they have been proposing cosmological theories. Furthermore, the notion of a deity often plays a central role in these cosmological theories. According to most monotheistic religions, God is the sole creator and sustainer of the universe.

But the last one hundred years have seen a different sort of cosmology: a scientific cosmology. Without running afoul of the demarcation problem***, the notable characteristics of scientific cosmology are that it uses the tools of mathematical physics (it is formalizable) and that it makes precise and testable predictions. What has this new scientific cosmology to do with traditional (often theistic) cosmologies? Has the new cosmology replaced the older cosmologies? Does the new cosmology inform or interpret the older cosmologies?

Cosmology and Theology (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

***The demarcation problem in the philosophy of science is about how to distinguish between science and nonscience, including between science, pseudoscience, and other products of human activity, like art and literature, and beliefs.
demarcation problem - Google Search

 

[Czernobog]

He, in fact, seems to have proven the opposite. Both his quote from Weiquin, and the one from Lenin, seem to be suggesting, quite contrary to what Ding is trying to claim, that their ideologies demand that any adherents to their ideologies must adopt atheism as their theologies. Ding, on the other hand, keeps insisting that the opposite is true - that atheists - oh, I'm sorry, militant atheists - naturally gravitate toward the Communist ideology.

That's actually an excellent point, Czernobog. One that hadn't occurred to me. In the meantime, it seems that, unfortunately, we've long abandoned the original theme of this thread, which is the dubious proposition that "atheism is the belief that something came out of nothing and that we're all going nowhere."

Well, that's because, like most arguments against atheism, what ultimately happens is that all arguments become some sort of "moral indictment". The overwhelming misconception of atheism is that all atheists fall into one of two categories:

Either they are despondent depressives who have such a bleak, hopeless view of life, and the universe that every one is just one misstep away from a self-produced noose, or eating their own gun, or

They are sociopathic hedonists who are incapable of any ethical, or moral consideration beyond the moment, and their next orgasm, or drug, or alcohol induced moment of self-gratification.

It is impossible for the moralists, and religionists to comprehend that it is possible to see value, and worth in life, and to conceive of a personal ethical code (the key word there being personal, incidentally, for anyone who gives a shit) without some outside force dictating for them what is, and is not, "right", and 'wrong".

 

[BreezeWood]

Hmmmm... actually space time had a beginning. We know this because of the 2nd Law of thermodynamics and the general theory of relativity. What started it is beyond science. What happened after it can be studied. Those studies show that the universe started in a hot dense state that occupied the space of “roughly a million billion billion times smaller than a single atom.” All of the models show this. Every single one. Why? Because that is what fits the observable data so all of the models model to this. That's called history matching. Now some people will try to claim that it is a cyclical process, but that is bullshit because the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics tells us that the universe cannot be infinite because as time approaches infinity, usable energy approaches zero. Now this does not mean the 1st Law of Thermodynamics is violated. Why? Because just because there is no more usable energy that does not mean that that energy is not accounted for. It is accounted for. It is still in the material balance. It just means everything is at the same temperature. So what we know is this... Matter evolved from subatomic particles into beings that know and create and the universe became self aware. The potential for this existed at the beginning. It occurred as a result of the laws of nature which came into existence when space and time were created. In effect beings that know and create were predestined the moment space and time came into existence.

Space and time had a beginning, but not energy, therefore since energy IS something there always was something and there always will be something. Claiming that space and time had a beginning does not prove energy had a beginning.

Actually even the statement "Space and Time had a beginning" is a presumption. This universe as we know it had a beginning. However, to definitively state that all of time and space began with the beginning of this universe is, in fact, a presumptive statement without quantitative evidence.

Not according to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. According to that, the universe had a beginning as it is impossible for the universe to be infinite acting.

See the 4 minute mark for this discussion.

The problem is that, even Einstein acknowledged that the closer one came to the event horizon of the universe, the more the laws of physics themselves begin to break down. So, how can you be certain that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics holds true all the way back to the very foundation of the universe?

It is after the event horizon (i.e. during the expansion) that entropy increases and the usable energy of the closed system (i.e. the universe) decreases. So if the universe were to collapse back upon itself and the cycle of expansion and contraction were to repeat infinitely eventually there would be no more usable energy available, unless of course one wants to violate the First Law of Thermodynamics and add more energy to the closed system (i.e. the universe). Of course this would mean that we would still need to explain the source (i.e. the first cause) of where that energy came from.

.

So if the universe were to collapse back upon itself and the cycle of expansion and contraction were to repeat infinitely eventually there would be no more usable energy available, unless of course one wants to violate the First Law of Thermodynamics and add more energy to the closed system (i.e. the universe).

matter in unison from the initial Singularity is traveling at a finite angle of trajectory as a loop and will eventually reconvene at the point of its origin in mass to recreate compaction and the next moment of Singularity. BB is a cyclical loop in a vacuum w/constant energy.