This is what atheist believe? Atheist believe that nothing created everything

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Tell us more about how nothing just created everything one day

I can tell you it can't be ruled out. If you want more info on it (you don't, you're just a happily ignorant, backwards religious goober), go read what scientists say.

 

[BreezeWood]

Tell us more about how nothing just created everything one day

I can tell you it can't be ruled out. If you want more info on it (you don't, you're just a happily ignorant, backwards religious goober), go read what scientists say.

.

I can tell you it can't be ruled out. If you want more info on it (you don't, you're just a happily ignorant, backwards religious goober), go read what scientists say.

.
... is there any other kind.

 

[Dusty]

Tell us more about how nothing just created everything one day

I can tell you it can't be ruled out. If you want more info on it (you don't, you're just a happily ignorant, backwards religious goober), go read what scientists say.

Show us all an example of nothing creating something.

Yawn

 

[Grumblenuts]

Show us all an example of nothing creating something.

Yawn

You created this thread, no?

 

[ChemEngineer]

Has anyone provided a proof of God's inexistence?
Not even close.
Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here?
Not even close.
Have the sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life?
Not even close.
Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought?
Close enough.
Has rationalism in moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral?
Not close enough.
Has secularism in the terrible twentieth century been a force for good?
Not even close to being close.
Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy of thought and opinion within the sciences?
Close enough.
Does anything in the sciences or in their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational?
Not even in the ballpark.
Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt?
Dead on. (The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions, by David Berlinski, cover)

 

[BreezeWood]

Has anyone provided a proof of God's inexistence?
Not even close.
Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here?
Not even close.
Have the sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life?
Not even close.
Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought?
Close enough.
Has rationalism in moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral?
Not close enough.
Has secularism in the terrible twentieth century been a force for good?
Not even close to being close.
Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy of thought and opinion within the sciences?
Close enough.
Does anything in the sciences or in their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational?
Not even in the ballpark.
Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt?
Dead on. (The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions, by David Berlinski, cover)

.

Has anyone provided a proof of God's inexistence?

.
how could they ...
.
they can prove though the 4th century christian bible a work of forgeries and fallacies written for those needing a religious intoxication created from nothing.

 

[emilynghiem]

Has anyone provided a proof of God's inexistence?
Not even close.
Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here?
Not even close.
Have the sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life?
Not even close.
Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought?
Close enough.
Has rationalism in moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral?
Not close enough.
Has secularism in the terrible twentieth century been a force for good?
Not even close to being close.
Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy of thought and opinion within the sciences?
Close enough.
Does anything in the sciences or in their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational?
Not even in the ballpark.
Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt?
Dead on. (The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions, by David Berlinski, cover)

As stated before, neither existence or nonexistence of God can be proven or disproven. The meaning of God being infinite and eternal, beyond the limits of finite human perception and language, all this we refer to remains faith based.

We either agree with each other, based on our faith, that we are talking about the same concepts or manifestations of God

Or we fail to resolve our differences.

Either way, a more practical application of faith in Christ that CAN be proven to have direct benefits and effects measurable by science: we can focus on proving how spiritual healing works to restore health minds, bodies and relations. Since this spiritual healing is based on forgiving conflicts from the past, it also heals relationships between people. We could study this natural healing process. And use that to demonstrate how prayers in Christ work. Understanding the nature of the spiritual process takes the same steps as understanding God and Christ.

JohnDB this is one thread where I am trying to find a different angle.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Since this spiritual healing is based on forgiving conflicts from the past, it also heals relationships between people.

Which could easily be found to work equally well with no "spiritual" connotation.

 

[Hollie]

Has anyone provided a proof of God's inexistence?
Not even close.
Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here?
Not even close.
Have the sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life?
Not even close.
Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought?
Close enough.
Has rationalism in moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral?
Not close enough.
Has secularism in the terrible twentieth century been a force for good?
Not even close to being close.
Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy of thought and opinion within the sciences?
Close enough.
Does anything in the sciences or in their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational?
Not even in the ballpark.
Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt?
Dead on. (The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions, by David Berlinski, cover)

Yes. I have proven your gods inexistence. Prove I haven't.

What's pretty typical is that you plagiarized the "prove it isn't" nonsense from the charlatan David Berlinski at the Disco'tute. Yours is typical pattern of behavior for the really angry, self-hating Christians. It’s an old ploy of religionists. It's the nonsensical demand that others prove something "doesn't exist".

You're repulsed at the use of reason and rationality to come to conclusions about the natural world because you're left to explain reality with nothing more than appeals to magic and supernaturalism. Thus, your inability to actually address challenges to fears and superstitions that are used by your religion to instill fear.

 

[forkup]

Atheists can't explain where the Universe came from

And they don't want anyone else to either

No atheists want the explanation to make sense. Atheists want that explanation to be verifiable.

Science offers models on where the universe might come from. It also acknowledges that since they have not devised a way to verify that, "I don't know" is the only intellectually honest thing to say.

Religion says they "know" that their model is correct without ever offering any evidence, and despite the fact that their have been thousands of different "God models" throughout the ages.

I'm more comfortable with those that have the courage to only accept as true, things that have been shown to be true and not simply invent an answer.

 

[Hollie]

Tell us more about how nothing just created everything one day

I can tell you it can't be ruled out. If you want more info on it (you don't, you're just a happily ignorant, backwards religious goober), go read what scientists say.

Show us all an example of nothing creating something.

Yawn

"Nothing creating something" seems to be how people define their gods. Religioners will dismiss the evidence / facts of naturalism by insisting that nothing in nature is possible without the intervention of their specific collection of supernatural entities who are beyond nature because their gods are... you know.... supernatural.

The typical religioner stammering and stuttering devolves to, "nuh uh, the gods can use magic....because I say so".

 

[forkup]

Has anyone provided a proof of God's inexistence?
Not even close.
Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here?
Not even close.
Have the sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life?
Not even close.
Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought?
Close enough.
Has rationalism in moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral?
Not close enough.
Has secularism in the terrible twentieth century been a force for good?
Not even close to being close.
Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy of thought and opinion within the sciences?
Close enough.
Does anything in the sciences or in their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational?
Not even in the ballpark.
Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt?
Dead on. (The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions, by David Berlinski, cover)

As stated before, neither existence or nonexistence of God can be proven or disproven. The meaning of God being infinite and eternal, beyond the limits of finite human perception and language, all this we refer to remains faith based.

We either agree with each other, based on our faith, that we are talking about the same concepts or manifestations of God

Or we fail to resolve our differences.

Either way, a more practical application of faith in Christ that CAN be proven to have direct benefits and effects measurable by science: we can focus on proving how spiritual healing works to restore health minds, bodies and relations. Since this spiritual healing is based on forgiving conflicts from the past, it also heals relationships between people. We could study this natural healing process. And use that to demonstrate how prayers in Christ work. Understanding the nature of the spiritual process takes the same steps as understanding God and Christ.

JohnDB this is one thread where I am trying to find a different angle.

The problem you have in trying to investigate the benefits of Christianty to society is that scientist would also have to look at the disadvantages of Christianity. How many people have been and are disavowed by their family because of Christianity for instance?

 

[ChemEngineer]

"Proof" is a highly controversial term. What one person considers to be "proof," another rejects with utter contempt and prideful arrogance, as if they were the Universal Arbiter of All Things.

Courts the world over now accept the "proof" of DNA analysis which is purely statistical.
The same statistics may be applied to any number of scientific studies from the Anthropic Principle to the Insuperable Impossibility of Naturalistic Polypeptide Synthesis.

Titin, a protein in your muscles, is 33,450 amino acid residues in length. Each link in this enormous chain was chosen from a possible 20 different amino acids. So what is 1/20 to the 33,450th power? It is effectively zero, and that is just ONE human protein. Just one of 10,000.
Do the math and have a nice day.

 

[ding]

Has anyone provided a proof of God's inexistence?
Not even close.
Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here?
Not even close.
Have the sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life?
Not even close.
Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought?
Close enough.
Has rationalism in moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral?
Not close enough.
Has secularism in the terrible twentieth century been a force for good?
Not even close to being close.
Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy of thought and opinion within the sciences?
Close enough.
Does anything in the sciences or in their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational?
Not even in the ballpark.
Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt?
Dead on. (The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions, by David Berlinski, cover)

As stated before, neither existence or nonexistence of God can be proven or disproven. The meaning of God being infinite and eternal, beyond the limits of finite human perception and language, all this we refer to remains faith based.

We either agree with each other, based on our faith, that we are talking about the same concepts or manifestations of God

Or we fail to resolve our differences.

Either way, a more practical application of faith in Christ that CAN be proven to have direct benefits and effects measurable by science: we can focus on proving how spiritual healing works to restore health minds, bodies and relations. Since this spiritual healing is based on forgiving conflicts from the past, it also heals relationships between people. We could study this natural healing process. And use that to demonstrate how prayers in Christ work. Understanding the nature of the spiritual process takes the same steps as understanding God and Christ.

JohnDB this is one thread where I am trying to find a different angle.

The problem you have in trying to investigate the benefits of Christianty to society is that scientist would also have to look at the disadvantages of Christianity. How many people have been and are disavowed by their family because of Christianity for instance?

Seems pretty obvious if one compares Western Civilization to the atheistic nations of the 20th century.

 

[Hollie]

"Proof" is a highly controversial term. What one person considers to be "proof," another rejects with utter contempt and prideful arrogance, as if they were the Universal Arbiter of All Things.

Courts the world over now accept the "proof" of DNA analysis which is purely statistical.
The same statistics may be applied to any number of scientific studies from the Anthropic Principle to the Insuperable Impossibility of Naturalistic Polypeptide Synthesis.

Titin, a protein in your muscles, is 33,450 amino acid residues in length. Each link in this enormous chain was chosen from a possible 20 different amino acids. So what is 1/20 to the 33,450th power? It is effectively zero, and that is just ONE human protein. Just one of 10,000.
Do the math and have a nice day.

On the other hand, Hinduism has 330 million gods. So what are the odds that your three gods actually exist?

Do the math.

 

[Grumblenuts]

But not all experts agree.

Tiffany Briggs, an assistant professor at Florida Atlantic University specializing in coastal morphology and geology, said the sand in Delaware and Maryland does differ.

The sand in most of the northern regions of the East Coast — including Delaware — came from glaciers melting 18,000 years ago, she said.

The Delaware beaches were about as south as that went, she added.

"When that ice sheet started melting, it released a lot of gravel and sand found along the Delaware coast," she said. "As you move farther south, the coastline is based much more on rivers. Maryland starts to pick up more of the river influence."

What that means, she said, is that the beaches made up of ancient river sediment have finer sand than beaches made up of sand from melting glaciers, which tends to be more pebbly.

But to most beachgoers, there isn't much of a difference in the sand up and down the coast.

Tiffany typically says shit like:

Sand is a mineral from 2 millimeters to 150 micrometers in size forming thousands of beaches around the globe, none exactly the same. There typically being one billion grains of sand per cubic foot of beach and 400,000 cubic yards of sand per beach adds up to a veritable shitload of sand grains, each theoretically tracible back to its battered childhood origins. Estimates range from 33,450 sandy residues per beach, each linked from a possible 20 different methods of abuse. Hold on, my butt needs a scratch. Ahh.. Okay, so what is 1/20 to the 33,450th power? It is effectively zero, and that is just ONE sand grain in 10 gazillion. What was this supposedly about again? Hell if I know. Oh well.

Do the math and have a nice day.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

"Nothing creating something" seems to be how people define their gods.

Exactly right. And they do so with 100% confidence. So it is absurd when constantly whine that someone else is claiming to know something came from nothing. Kind of childish... as if they think we won't notice they are the only ones doing that...

 

[ding]

"Nothing creating something" seems to be how people define their gods.

Exactly right. And they do so with 100% confidence. So it is absurd when constantly whine that someone else is claiming to know something came from nothing. Kind of childish... as if they think we won't notice they are the only ones doing that...

Do you guys even philosophy or logic? Seriously, are you so insecure in your beliefs that you need to misstate the beliefs of others?

 

[forkup]

Has anyone provided a proof of God's inexistence?
Not even close.
Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here?
Not even close.
Have the sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life?
Not even close.
Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought?
Close enough.
Has rationalism in moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral?
Not close enough.
Has secularism in the terrible twentieth century been a force for good?
Not even close to being close.
Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy of thought and opinion within the sciences?
Close enough.
Does anything in the sciences or in their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational?
Not even in the ballpark.
Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt?
Dead on. (The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions, by David Berlinski, cover)

As stated before, neither existence or nonexistence of God can be proven or disproven. The meaning of God being infinite and eternal, beyond the limits of finite human perception and language, all this we refer to remains faith based.

We either agree with each other, based on our faith, that we are talking about the same concepts or manifestations of God

Or we fail to resolve our differences.

Either way, a more practical application of faith in Christ that CAN be proven to have direct benefits and effects measurable by science: we can focus on proving how spiritual healing works to restore health minds, bodies and relations. Since this spiritual healing is based on forgiving conflicts from the past, it also heals relationships between people. We could study this natural healing process. And use that to demonstrate how prayers in Christ work. Understanding the nature of the spiritual process takes the same steps as understanding God and Christ.

JohnDB this is one thread where I am trying to find a different angle.

The problem you have in trying to investigate the benefits of Christianty to society is that scientist would also have to look at the disadvantages of Christianity. How many people have been and are disavowed by their family because of Christianity for instance?

Seems pretty obvious if one compares Western Civilization to the atheistic nations of the 20th century.

Western Civilizations ARE atheistic. Separation of state and church remember? As far as I can tell, throughout history, religion has almost always been a hindrance to progress.

 

[emilynghiem]

Has anyone provided a proof of God's inexistence?
Not even close.
Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here?
Not even close.
Have the sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life?
Not even close.
Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought?
Close enough.
Has rationalism in moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral?
Not close enough.
Has secularism in the terrible twentieth century been a force for good?
Not even close to being close.
Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy of thought and opinion within the sciences?
Close enough.
Does anything in the sciences or in their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational?
Not even in the ballpark.
Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt?
Dead on. (The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions, by David Berlinski, cover)

As stated before, neither existence or nonexistence of God can be proven or disproven. The meaning of God being infinite and eternal, beyond the limits of finite human perception and language, all this we refer to remains faith based.

We either agree with each other, based on our faith, that we are talking about the same concepts or manifestations of God

Or we fail to resolve our differences.

Either way, a more practical application of faith in Christ that CAN be proven to have direct benefits and effects measurable by science: we can focus on proving how spiritual healing works to restore health minds, bodies and relations. Since this spiritual healing is based on forgiving conflicts from the past, it also heals relationships between people. We could study this natural healing process. And use that to demonstrate how prayers in Christ work. Understanding the nature of the spiritual process takes the same steps as understanding God and Christ.

JohnDB this is one thread where I am trying to find a different angle.

The problem you have in trying to investigate the benefits of Christianty to society is that scientist would also have to look at the disadvantages of Christianity. How many people have been and are disavowed by their family because of Christianity for instance?

Seems pretty obvious if one compares Western Civilization to the atheistic nations of the 20th century.

Western Civilizations ARE atheistic. Separation of state and church remember? As far as I can tell, throughout history, religion has almost always been a hindrance to progress.

Maybe secular or nontheist forkup
Tolerating and including atheism is not atheist but universal or secular.

Plenty of Christians both left and right still support separating govt from church.

The First Amendment goes both ways:
With NO LAWS respecting either Establishment of Religion OR Prohibiting the Free Exercise thereof.

Neither can Govt Establish Nor Prohibit.

True separation means neutral.

It does not mean imposing either Atheism or Theism, but using agreed secular "nontheistic" terms that accomodate both.

Terms like Equal Justice Under Law accommodate those who believe in Social Justice, Equal Justice, Restoratie Justice, Jesus as Justice, Retributive Justice, Peace and Justice, Justice with Mercy, etc.

Justice is still a faith based term never seen or proven to exist.

But we agree to use this secular term.

It is neither atheist Christian or theist.

I would call it nontheist but it still allows Christians and Deists to tie it to God or Jesus as the Authority of Justice by those beliefs.

So the govt and Constitutional laws can still be interpreted as consistent with Christianity and Deist beliefs equally as Atheists or Nontheists can interpret it as nonreligious.