Can Atheists be Moral?

[ding]

No. Not really. You have a better explanation? We know there was a beginning. Why does this disturb you?

When you start talking like that, I lose interest.

Who said it disturbs me? I didn't.

It seems to me that you are reluctant to accept that the universe had a beginning. Many people are. Not because of the data but because of the implication.

You use the wrong words. I question it. And because of my primitive pea brain, as I've explained already, (do you read, and retain?) I can only think in terms of beginnings and endings. I can't grasp the concept of eternity. But that does not nean there's no such thing.

Which wrong words did I use?

Stop it!

I don't believe I used any wrong words. I used the words that were necessary to describe what I was explaining to you. I'm not going to walk on eggshells.

 

[RodISHI]

A three minute video...



or if you prefer... Inflation Theory, the First Law of Thermodynamics and quantum mechanics tells us that it is possible for matter to have a beginning. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws which describes the evolution of the universe describes the creation of the universe which means the laws of nature were in place before the creation of space and time.

That's all very well, Ding.

It depends on your favourite scientist of the day.

No. Not really. You have a better explanation? We know there was a beginning. Why does this disturb you?

When you start talking like that, I lose interest.

Who said it disturbs me? I didn't.

It seems to me that you are reluctant to accept that the universe had a beginning. Many people are. Not because of the data but because of the implication.

You use the wrong words. I question it. And because of my primitive pea brain, as I've explained already, (do you read, and retain?) I can only think in terms of beginnings and endings. I can't grasp the concept of eternity. But that does not nean there's no such thing.

In eternity it is difficult to grasp something as having shorts lives of a thousand or two thousand years. Everything to the earthy mind is an opposite to that which is created with the eternal spirit.

 

[hobelim]

No. Not really. You have a better explanation? We know there was a beginning. Why does this disturb you?

When you start talking like that, I lose interest.

Who said it disturbs me? I didn't.

It seems to me that you are reluctant to accept that the universe had a beginning. Many people are. Not because of the data but because of the implication.

You use the wrong words. I question it. And because of my primitive pea brain, as I've explained already, (do you read, and retain?) I can only think in terms of beginnings and endings. I can't grasp the concept of eternity. But that does not nean there's no such thing.

Which wrong words did I use?

Stop it!

Geez. Can you imagine what this guy was like before he was transformed and saved by eating Jesus?

.

 

[G.T.]

Why did GT run off? I thought he really liked this science stuff.

Ding, dont beg honey. I came here today to talk to hobelum. You interjected, I entertained you for a little but your twatty attitude always gets the better of you.

Cool story, bro. But if you could hang you would. Please do carry on. It should be entertaining.

A 60 year old acting like a boastful 15yr old bowling tournament winner is impressive though.

I'm just calling it like it is. Every single time you get confronted with something you have no good answer for and it threatens your bias, you make some BS excuse blaming me and run away. If you behave like that in the real world, you probably have a lot of drama in your life.

Your ego makes snowflakes look like tungsten.

You get upset. I understand. Its never gunna make me take you seriously, intellectually, Dingerred. I think that youre stupid.

 

[Mindful]

When you start talking like that, I lose interest.

Who said it disturbs me? I didn't.

It seems to me that you are reluctant to accept that the universe had a beginning. Many people are. Not because of the data but because of the implication.

You use the wrong words. I question it. And because of my primitive pea brain, as I've explained already, (do you read, and retain?) I can only think in terms of beginnings and endings. I can't grasp the concept of eternity. But that does not nean there's no such thing.

Which wrong words did I use?

Stop it!

I don't believe I used any wrong words. I used the words that were necessary to describe what I was explaining to you. I'm not going to walk on eggshells.

Don't then. No one is making you.

 

[Mindful]

When you start talking like that, I lose interest.

Who said it disturbs me? I didn't.

It seems to me that you are reluctant to accept that the universe had a beginning. Many people are. Not because of the data but because of the implication.

You use the wrong words. I question it. And because of my primitive pea brain, as I've explained already, (do you read, and retain?) I can only think in terms of beginnings and endings. I can't grasp the concept of eternity. But that does not nean there's no such thing.

Which wrong words did I use?

Stop it!

Geez. Can you imagine what this guy was like before he was transformed and saved by eating Jesus?

.

It's like going down the rabbit hole, all this stuff. Maybe I'll run into the Mad Hatter.

 

[hobelim]

It seems to me that you are reluctant to accept that the universe had a beginning. Many people are. Not because of the data but because of the implication.

You use the wrong words. I question it. And because of my primitive pea brain, as I've explained already, (do you read, and retain?) I can only think in terms of beginnings and endings. I can't grasp the concept of eternity. But that does not nean there's no such thing.

Which wrong words did I use?

Stop it!

Geez. Can you imagine what this guy was like before he was transformed and saved by eating Jesus?

.

It's like going down the rabbit hole, all this stuff. Maybe I'll run into the Mad Hatter.

I know. You might, I did. I even offered him some tea..

 

[Taz]

It’s not proof, just a theory, like what you propose, a theory.

You are still proving my point.

Where's your link again? I provided mine.

He’s giving an opinion, like you do. Science can’t see all the way back to the BB yet.

No. He's actually written scientific papers on the universe being created from nothing. Besides, that just sounds like it is your opinion.

Do you have a link to anything? I know how big you are on links, right?

So he’s written about his theory, that doesn’t mean that science has accepted it as fact. Please try again.

Yes, it is the leading explanation for the beginning of the universe. There are no other models which explain how the universe began without violating the laws of thermodynamics. Not to mention it's predictions match what we see. There is one final match that they are working to prove but they do not have a detector built yet.

So you admit that it’s not fact. Good for you.

 

[ding]

You are still proving my point.

Where's your link again? I provided mine.

He’s giving an opinion, like you do. Science can’t see all the way back to the BB yet.

No. He's actually written scientific papers on the universe being created from nothing. Besides, that just sounds like it is your opinion.

Do you have a link to anything? I know how big you are on links, right?

So he’s written about his theory, that doesn’t mean that science has accepted it as fact. Please try again.

Yes, it is the leading explanation for the beginning of the universe. There are no other models which explain how the universe began without violating the laws of thermodynamics. Not to mention it's predictions match what we see. There is one final match that they are working to prove but they do not have a detector built yet.

So you admit that it’s not fact. Good for you.

I'll let you know when I want the opinion of a cable repairman. Fair enough?

 

[sealybobo]

Seems like the Bible would have mentioned this "no thing" concept once or twice. What is said is The Creator.

Chapter 1 and 2 of Genesis is the allegorical account of the creation of space and time and tells us that man is a product of that creation. Man came from dust and man will return to dust.

We have to keep in mind that these accounts are 6,000 years old and were passed down orally from one generation to the next for thousands of years. Surely ancient man believed these accounts were of the utmost importance otherwise they would not have been passed down for thousands of years before they were recorded in writing. We shouldn't view these accounts using the context of the modern world. Unfortunately, we are so far removed from these events that we have lost all original meaning. If you were to ask almost any Jew what the Tower of Babel was about he would have no clue that it was the allegorical account of the great migration from the cradle of civilization. That is not intended to be a criticism. It is intended to be an illustration of just how difficult a task it is to discover the original meaning from ancient accounts from 6,000 years ago. We read these texts like they were written yesterday looking for ways to discredit them and make ourselves feel superior rather than seeking the original meaning and wisdom.

You guys tell us there’s something wrong with us atheists for not believing the Bible. You come up with all kinds of irrational reasons why we don’t buy it.

Well why isn’t it obvious to the muslims, Buddhists, Mormons, Hindus, jews etc?

How come they aren’t Christians too?

 

[sealybobo]

He’s giving an opinion, like you do. Science can’t see all the way back to the BB yet.

No. He's actually written scientific papers on the universe being created from nothing. Besides, that just sounds like it is your opinion.

Do you have a link to anything? I know how big you are on links, right?

So he’s written about his theory, that doesn’t mean that science has accepted it as fact. Please try again.

Yes, it is the leading explanation for the beginning of the universe. There are no other models which explain how the universe began without violating the laws of thermodynamics. Not to mention it's predictions match what we see. There is one final match that they are working to prove but they do not have a detector built yet.

So you admit that it’s not fact. Good for you.

I'll let you know when I want the opinion of a cable repairman. Fair enough?

Cable Guy with Jim Carey

 

[ding]

Seems like the Bible would have mentioned this "no thing" concept once or twice. What is said is The Creator.

Chapter 1 and 2 of Genesis is the allegorical account of the creation of space and time and tells us that man is a product of that creation. Man came from dust and man will return to dust.

We have to keep in mind that these accounts are 6,000 years old and were passed down orally from one generation to the next for thousands of years. Surely ancient man believed these accounts were of the utmost importance otherwise they would not have been passed down for thousands of years before they were recorded in writing. We shouldn't view these accounts using the context of the modern world. Unfortunately, we are so far removed from these events that we have lost all original meaning. If you were to ask almost any Jew what the Tower of Babel was about he would have no clue that it was the allegorical account of the great migration from the cradle of civilization. That is not intended to be a criticism. It is intended to be an illustration of just how difficult a task it is to discover the original meaning from ancient accounts from 6,000 years ago. We read these texts like they were written yesterday looking for ways to discredit them and make ourselves feel superior rather than seeking the original meaning and wisdom.

You guys tell us there’s something wrong with us atheists for not believing the Bible. You come up with all kinds of irrational reasons why we don’t buy it.

Well why isn’t it obvious to the muslims, Buddhists, Mormons, Hindus, jews etc?

How come they aren’t Christians too?

No. I am telling you it is idiotic to call it a fairytale. But please do keep doing it because I don't mind correcting it.

 

[ding]

No. He's actually written scientific papers on the universe being created from nothing. Besides, that just sounds like it is your opinion.

Do you have a link to anything? I know how big you are on links, right?

So he’s written about his theory, that doesn’t mean that science has accepted it as fact. Please try again.

Yes, it is the leading explanation for the beginning of the universe. There are no other models which explain how the universe began without violating the laws of thermodynamics. Not to mention it's predictions match what we see. There is one final match that they are working to prove but they do not have a detector built yet.

So you admit that it’s not fact. Good for you.

I'll let you know when I want the opinion of a cable repairman. Fair enough?

Cable Guy with Jim Carey

Probably more like Larry...






























...if Larry were gay.

 

[sealybobo]

Seems like the Bible would have mentioned this "no thing" concept once or twice. What is said is The Creator.

Chapter 1 and 2 of Genesis is the allegorical account of the creation of space and time and tells us that man is a product of that creation. Man came from dust and man will return to dust.

We have to keep in mind that these accounts are 6,000 years old and were passed down orally from one generation to the next for thousands of years. Surely ancient man believed these accounts were of the utmost importance otherwise they would not have been passed down for thousands of years before they were recorded in writing. We shouldn't view these accounts using the context of the modern world. Unfortunately, we are so far removed from these events that we have lost all original meaning. If you were to ask almost any Jew what the Tower of Babel was about he would have no clue that it was the allegorical account of the great migration from the cradle of civilization. That is not intended to be a criticism. It is intended to be an illustration of just how difficult a task it is to discover the original meaning from ancient accounts from 6,000 years ago. We read these texts like they were written yesterday looking for ways to discredit them and make ourselves feel superior rather than seeking the original meaning and wisdom.

You guys tell us there’s something wrong with us atheists for not believing the Bible. You come up with all kinds of irrational reasons why we don’t buy it.

Well why isn’t it obvious to the muslims, Buddhists, Mormons, Hindus, jews etc?

How come they aren’t Christians too?

No. I am telling you it is idiotic to call it a fairytale. But please do keep doing it because I don't mind correcting it.

Ok I’ll give you there was a nice man name Jesus born 2000 years ago. Jews Mormons muslims Hindu Buddhist agree with that too.

 

[Hollie]

Seems like the Bible would have mentioned this "no thing" concept once or twice. What is said is The Creator.

Chapter 1 and 2 of Genesis is the allegorical account of the creation of space and time and tells us that man is a product of that creation. Man came from dust and man will return to dust.

We have to keep in mind that these accounts are 6,000 years old and were passed down orally from one generation to the next for thousands of years. Surely ancient man believed these accounts were of the utmost importance otherwise they would not have been passed down for thousands of years before they were recorded in writing. We shouldn't view these accounts using the context of the modern world. Unfortunately, we are so far removed from these events that we have lost all original meaning. If you were to ask almost any Jew what the Tower of Babel was about he would have no clue that it was the allegorical account of the great migration from the cradle of civilization. That is not intended to be a criticism. It is intended to be an illustration of just how difficult a task it is to discover the original meaning from ancient accounts from 6,000 years ago. We read these texts like they were written yesterday looking for ways to discredit them and make ourselves feel superior rather than seeking the original meaning and wisdom.

You guys tell us there’s something wrong with us atheists for not believing the Bible. You come up with all kinds of irrational reasons why we don’t buy it.

Well why isn’t it obvious to the muslims, Buddhists, Mormons, Hindus, jews etc?

How come they aren’t Christians too?

They have the fashion sense to avoid the big funny hats worn by the catholic clergy.

 

[ding]

Seems like the Bible would have mentioned this "no thing" concept once or twice. What is said is The Creator.

Chapter 1 and 2 of Genesis is the allegorical account of the creation of space and time and tells us that man is a product of that creation. Man came from dust and man will return to dust.

We have to keep in mind that these accounts are 6,000 years old and were passed down orally from one generation to the next for thousands of years. Surely ancient man believed these accounts were of the utmost importance otherwise they would not have been passed down for thousands of years before they were recorded in writing. We shouldn't view these accounts using the context of the modern world. Unfortunately, we are so far removed from these events that we have lost all original meaning. If you were to ask almost any Jew what the Tower of Babel was about he would have no clue that it was the allegorical account of the great migration from the cradle of civilization. That is not intended to be a criticism. It is intended to be an illustration of just how difficult a task it is to discover the original meaning from ancient accounts from 6,000 years ago. We read these texts like they were written yesterday looking for ways to discredit them and make ourselves feel superior rather than seeking the original meaning and wisdom.

You guys tell us there’s something wrong with us atheists for not believing the Bible. You come up with all kinds of irrational reasons why we don’t buy it.

Well why isn’t it obvious to the muslims, Buddhists, Mormons, Hindus, jews etc?

How come they aren’t Christians too?

No. I am telling you it is idiotic to call it a fairytale. But please do keep doing it because I don't mind correcting it.

Ok I’ll give you there was a nice man name Jesus born 2000 years ago. Jews Mormons muslims Hindu Buddhist agree with that too.

Try harder.

 

[sealybobo]

Seems like the Bible would have mentioned this "no thing" concept once or twice. What is said is The Creator.

Chapter 1 and 2 of Genesis is the allegorical account of the creation of space and time and tells us that man is a product of that creation. Man came from dust and man will return to dust.

We have to keep in mind that these accounts are 6,000 years old and were passed down orally from one generation to the next for thousands of years. Surely ancient man believed these accounts were of the utmost importance otherwise they would not have been passed down for thousands of years before they were recorded in writing. We shouldn't view these accounts using the context of the modern world. Unfortunately, we are so far removed from these events that we have lost all original meaning. If you were to ask almost any Jew what the Tower of Babel was about he would have no clue that it was the allegorical account of the great migration from the cradle of civilization. That is not intended to be a criticism. It is intended to be an illustration of just how difficult a task it is to discover the original meaning from ancient accounts from 6,000 years ago. We read these texts like they were written yesterday looking for ways to discredit them and make ourselves feel superior rather than seeking the original meaning and wisdom.

You guys tell us there’s something wrong with us atheists for not believing the Bible. You come up with all kinds of irrational reasons why we don’t buy it.

Well why isn’t it obvious to the muslims, Buddhists, Mormons, Hindus, jews etc?

How come they aren’t Christians too?

They have the fashion sense to avoid the big funny hats worn by the catholic clergy.

But don’t you think I’m making a good point that ding probably wants to avoid? Christians go on and on about why atheists don’t believe in the Bible but do they use any of those same arguments when debating Christianity with people of other faiths?

We are all atheists. Ding doesn’t believe in the Hindu Mormon or Muslim gods. He just believes in one more god than I do.

Same with Muslims. They aren’t buying the new or Old testaments or the book of Mormons just like I don’t.

 

[ding]

Seems like the Bible would have mentioned this "no thing" concept once or twice. What is said is The Creator.

Chapter 1 and 2 of Genesis is the allegorical account of the creation of space and time and tells us that man is a product of that creation. Man came from dust and man will return to dust.

We have to keep in mind that these accounts are 6,000 years old and were passed down orally from one generation to the next for thousands of years. Surely ancient man believed these accounts were of the utmost importance otherwise they would not have been passed down for thousands of years before they were recorded in writing. We shouldn't view these accounts using the context of the modern world. Unfortunately, we are so far removed from these events that we have lost all original meaning. If you were to ask almost any Jew what the Tower of Babel was about he would have no clue that it was the allegorical account of the great migration from the cradle of civilization. That is not intended to be a criticism. It is intended to be an illustration of just how difficult a task it is to discover the original meaning from ancient accounts from 6,000 years ago. We read these texts like they were written yesterday looking for ways to discredit them and make ourselves feel superior rather than seeking the original meaning and wisdom.

You guys tell us there’s something wrong with us atheists for not believing the Bible. You come up with all kinds of irrational reasons why we don’t buy it.

Well why isn’t it obvious to the muslims, Buddhists, Mormons, Hindus, jews etc?

How come they aren’t Christians too?

They have the fashion sense to avoid the big funny hats worn by the catholic clergy.

But don’t you think I’m making a good point that ding probably wants to avoid? Christians go on and on about why atheists don’t believe in the Bible but do they use any of those same arguments when debating Christianity with people of other faiths?

We are all atheists. Ding doesn’t believe in the Hindu Mormon or Muslim gods. He just believes in one more god than I do.

Same with Muslims. They aren’t buying the new or Old testaments or the book of Mormons just like I don’t.

I don't argue about other people's faith. I'm not like you.

 

[Hollie]

Seems like the Bible would have mentioned this "no thing" concept once or twice. What is said is The Creator.

Chapter 1 and 2 of Genesis is the allegorical account of the creation of space and time and tells us that man is a product of that creation. Man came from dust and man will return to dust.

We have to keep in mind that these accounts are 6,000 years old and were passed down orally from one generation to the next for thousands of years. Surely ancient man believed these accounts were of the utmost importance otherwise they would not have been passed down for thousands of years before they were recorded in writing. We shouldn't view these accounts using the context of the modern world. Unfortunately, we are so far removed from these events that we have lost all original meaning. If you were to ask almost any Jew what the Tower of Babel was about he would have no clue that it was the allegorical account of the great migration from the cradle of civilization. That is not intended to be a criticism. It is intended to be an illustration of just how difficult a task it is to discover the original meaning from ancient accounts from 6,000 years ago. We read these texts like they were written yesterday looking for ways to discredit them and make ourselves feel superior rather than seeking the original meaning and wisdom.

You guys tell us there’s something wrong with us atheists for not believing the Bible. You come up with all kinds of irrational reasons why we don’t buy it.

Well why isn’t it obvious to the muslims, Buddhists, Mormons, Hindus, jews etc?

How come they aren’t Christians too?

They have the fashion sense to avoid the big funny hats worn by the catholic clergy.

But don’t you think I’m making a good point that ding probably wants to avoid? Christians go on and on about why atheists don’t believe in the Bible but do they use any of those same arguments when debating Christianity with people of other faiths?

We are all atheists. Ding doesn’t believe in the Hindu Mormon or Muslim gods. He just believes in one more god than I do.

Same with Muslims. They aren’t buying the new or Old testaments or the book of Mormons just like I don’t.

Your point is well taken.

People accept what their theistic beliefs are for many reasons (mostly cultural), but rarely do they apply very hard standards to those reasons. They tend to be cultural, i.e., you grew up in a social environment that preferred one belief over another.

If you raise a baby in a Hindu culture, it will almost certainly embrace Hinduism; if in a Christian home, Christianity. All theistic beliefs are externally brought to human beings, none of them display inherent hardwiring. If you raise a child devoid of god concepts in the middle of a remote jungle, the child will not arbitrarily and spontaneously generate theism.

 

[sealybobo]

Seems like the Bible would have mentioned this "no thing" concept once or twice. What is said is The Creator.

Chapter 1 and 2 of Genesis is the allegorical account of the creation of space and time and tells us that man is a product of that creation. Man came from dust and man will return to dust.

We have to keep in mind that these accounts are 6,000 years old and were passed down orally from one generation to the next for thousands of years. Surely ancient man believed these accounts were of the utmost importance otherwise they would not have been passed down for thousands of years before they were recorded in writing. We shouldn't view these accounts using the context of the modern world. Unfortunately, we are so far removed from these events that we have lost all original meaning. If you were to ask almost any Jew what the Tower of Babel was about he would have no clue that it was the allegorical account of the great migration from the cradle of civilization. That is not intended to be a criticism. It is intended to be an illustration of just how difficult a task it is to discover the original meaning from ancient accounts from 6,000 years ago. We read these texts like they were written yesterday looking for ways to discredit them and make ourselves feel superior rather than seeking the original meaning and wisdom.

You guys tell us there’s something wrong with us atheists for not believing the Bible. You come up with all kinds of irrational reasons why we don’t buy it.

Well why isn’t it obvious to the muslims, Buddhists, Mormons, Hindus, jews etc?

How come they aren’t Christians too?

They have the fashion sense to avoid the big funny hats worn by the catholic clergy.

But don’t you think I’m making a good point that ding probably wants to avoid? Christians go on and on about why atheists don’t believe in the Bible but do they use any of those same arguments when debating Christianity with people of other faiths?

We are all atheists. Ding doesn’t believe in the Hindu Mormon or Muslim gods. He just believes in one more god than I do.

Same with Muslims. They aren’t buying the new or Old testaments or the book of Mormons just like I don’t.

I don't argue about other people's faith. I'm not like you.

You’re purposely missing the point. You know their religions are bullshit. I know it too. They know your religion is bullshit. I know it too.

You just don’t know it same as they dont