[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Atheists, know damns sure there ain’t no God. [/quote]
…yep, no christian God, Zeus, Odin or Wodan, no Vishnu either, or Brahman for that matter (:[/quote]
Do you believe in a prime mover, or something from nothing? If I recall correctly it was the latter, but I want to make sure.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…the question remains: did Stalin kill all those people because he was an atheist, or because he was a megalomaniac who used communist ideology to usurp his power?[/quote]No, but his atheism (functional anyway) gave him no reason not to.
[/quote]
True maybe, but do you think that Stalin wouldn’t have done what he did if he did have a belief in God?
More likely than not he would have just twisted this to justify his own actions to himself, as so many others have done in the past.
Evil people are evil, and belief in God or not doesn’t change that.
Isn’t the argument concerning all the atheist genocidal maniacs that they require moral relativity allowed them by atheism to do what they do? That if they adhered to any god or religion they would be unlikely to be able to follow through with their plans?
“For those who believe, no explanation is necessary. For those who don’t believe, no explanation is possible.”
I think atheists need to develop a better track record in history. Many atheists I know spew such hatred for any type of religion that it’s hard for me to imagine putting someone in office who has such religous intolerance. Now there are exceptions to that but from what i’ve seen and heard thats the general consensus. I haven’t met an atheist who didn’t absolutely hate one religion or another or all.
Certain things to me just don’t add up enough for me to say certain “miracles” were just chance or good luck. If a person is clinically pronouced dead with zero vitals and brain activity for HOURS how are near death experiences possible? People have seen and experienced too much for me to say that there is 100% no chance of there being a God.
And then you tend to think about what famous atheists or prosumed atheists have done in history, it’s pretty much a downward spiral from there. What i’ve also experienced, especially in college was people saying they were atheist or didn’t believe in God because they didn’t want moral obligation for “sins” that they were committing. I would always hear “I don’t believe in God, who wants to wait to have sex?” and such. I’ve also heard “Believing in God makes you weak. You should believe what you want and live your life freely.” I know that statement can be interpreted in different ways but you just get a hint and a sense that atheists want to be atheists to free themselves of certain or all societal moral obligations.
You can make agruements that there were earlier codes and laws of obligation, but the 10 commandments IMO are the undisputed champion of moral structure from which laws were created. Its the back bone of society today. Why are people so outraged that Tiger commited adultry? Its the moral roots of the 10 commandments. I think if the 10 commandments didn’t exist, along with other similar early laws, our society would be alot different in what is morally acceptable.
But ultimately, IMO, being a Christian and adhering to THAT moral code, is one of the hardest things you can do in your life. Especially if your trying to adhere to the principals of the 10 Commandments.
Its much easier to have sex before marriage than not. (Fornication)
Its much easier to screw your best friends hot wife than not. (honor and love your neighbor/adultry)
ITs much easier to steal what you want than work hard and pay for it. (Stealing/theft/theivry)
Its much easier to kill for your own lust,gratification,gain or other arbitrary reason. (Murder)
and on and on.
Why are prisons so overcrowded in the world today? Because no matter WHO you are or WHAT you believe in, its easier to do whats wrong than what is right.
Take it or leave it, but I much rather give props to someone who lives by that moral code. I respect the guy who waits until marriage more than the Hugh Hefner type. Any man can do wrong, but it takes a truly strong person to do what is right. No matter what you believe or don’t believe in.
So give me an atheist who doesn’t hate the world for believing, and has solid moral foundation and views, and that is someone I might endorse. And don’t give me that crap that theres plenty of them out there because history and majority prove that wrong to me everyday.
Origins of the Universe? Or just plain silly?
In an attempt to provide some sort of explanation for the existence of the universe, conventional science has sought refuge in the theory that it came about as part of a vast cosmic bang. We are told that somehow, in the depths of time a great explosion occurred propelling energy and matter across phenomenal distances. According to the theory this matter eventually settled down to form the stars and planets and this tiny planet of ours.
Reality?
But is the theory of the Big Bang really how it started? Here the answer is a resounding no! In fact anyone with enough logic will immediately see the pitfalls of a theory, that like Darwinâ??s Origin of the Species has been seized upon to distance science from the hand of God.
Platform Already Existed.
The whole theory of the Big Bang as the point of creation for the universe falls down on one simple point: This is the fact that for an explosion to occur it needs something to explode into. If nothing existed before the Big Bang then there was no platform for the explosion to have taken place. In which case it means that if such an enormous bang had once occurred it could only have done so within the framework of a setting which was every bit a part of the physical world as the universe is today. In other words the Big Bang exploded into a physical universe that was already extant before it occurred. Either way this proves that the Big Bang could not have been responsible for the creation of all matter.
The Conclusive Formula.
It has always been argued that the language of science is mathematics. If the Big Bang can be disproved mathematically then to all intents and purposes the theory is redundant. In this case the mathematical proof is devastatingly simple. For example scientists love to refer to the state of the universe milli seconds after the Big Bang, but we on the other hand would like to refer to The Big Bang milli seconds before it happened. In our equation we shall represent this as zero, because according to our top brains nothing existed. The trouble is that no matter what you do with zero, it always equals zero. For instance 0 x 1414141 = 0. 0/189889787 still equals 0, and 0 + 128789738237 is precisely zero ( if this last assertion astonishes you turn to our separate page on this theme, which illustrates that even the present logic of mathematics can sometimes be faulty). The fact is that even the biggest number you can think of when multiplied by zero, still equals zero. In plain language nothing!
Magic Formula.
Our magic formula then can be expressed simply as 0 = 0, and as we have heard no amount of mathematical manipulation will make zero any bigger. With the Big Bang it means that you cannot get something out of nothing. There has to be something there to work with. It also means that as a theory to explain the origin of all matter the Big Bang must now be consigned to the dustbin of history.
Before the Big Bang.
The obvious truth is, that even if the Big Bang theory was as sound as scientists are saying, there had to exist something that brought this bang into being. Some describe this as the hand of God, and others as yet another dimension of existence that forged the way to this present universe. Either way it shows that the Big Bang is not the answer for creation, but one more mystery of a pre-existing universe that just gets stranger and stranger.
From www.nasca.org.uk
[quote]Cameron_Phillips wrote:
Isn’t the argument concerning all the atheist genocidal maniacs that they require moral relativity allowed them by atheism to do what they do? That if they adhered to any god or religion they would be unlikely to be able to follow through with their plans? [/quote]
Or they could just join, create or pervert a religion to reinforce their personal sense of morality. One doesn’t seem easier than the other. I imagine the specific conditions make one or the other more appealing to our genocidal maniacs.
The Big Bang theory also ignores the First law of Thermodynamics, which says:
“matter cannot be created or destroyed”
Those who believe in the Big Bang theory are also either unaware of, or ignore the “Second Law of Thermodynamics” which says:
“Everything tends towards disorder”
So rather than the chaos (big bang) becoming ordered (our universe), just the opposite would be true… And it is. Our complex universe is wearing down, and becoming more chaotic…
Here is how the Big Bang is often presented:
Somewhere between 18 and 20 billion years ago, all of the matter in the universe was compressed into a tiny space no larger than the dot on a page. This dot spun faster and faster until it exploded, thus creating the Universe and everything in it.
There are many problems with this theory. And the theory itself still does not answer many important questions - Such as where did all the matter in the universe come from?
If all the matter in the universe was compressed into a small dot, what caused this to happen? Where did gravity come from that held it together?
If this “dot” spun rapidly until it exploded., then where did the energy come from to start the spinning?
Also, in an environment without friction you would have this spinning dot going so fast it would then explode. If this happened, then all of the particles and matter being expelled from this “spinning dot” would all have to spin in the same direction as the dot they exploded from.
This is a known law of science, which those who believe in Evolution cannot do away with. It is known as the Conservation of angular momentum.
This matter which is said to have created the planets would all need to spin in the same direction as the object it came from.
So therefore, all of the planets should be spinning in the same direction.
However two of them are not. Venus and Uranus spin backwards.
Some planets even have moons that not only spin backwards, but travel backward around their planets.
So to cliff note the above, which was info I found interesting, research the following:
Evidence of Polonium Halos (this is a big arguement)
The Theory of Thermodynamics
The Theory of Chaos
The Big Bang Theory seriously messes with these simple rules of science to a degree that frustrated me greatly. When I was 16 I set out to disprove the existence of God from my own personal research. I couldn’t. I think atheists are too quick to judge anyone who believes in any type of diety.
So roundabout way to answer your question, but the axiomatic structure of atheist belief leads to my incredulous nature.
So my question for YOU is: Do most atheists believe in the Big Bang theory and Evolution to assusage their denial of a Diety presence?
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Atheists, know damns sure there ain’t no God. [/quote]
…yep, no christian God, Zeus, Odin or Wodan, no Vishnu either, or Brahman for that matter (:[/quote]
Do you believe in a prime mover, or something from nothing? If I recall correctly it was the latter, but I want to make sure.[/quote]
…i believe that, if there is a prime mover, it exist outside our scope of understanding and that any kind of antromorphic qualities bestowed on this prime mover fall infinitly short of the truth…
…furthermore, i don’t limit the existence of the universe to its current state. That means that the universe could have existed in a much denser form, or even as a singularity. Seen as such, there’s no reason to assume the universe is not eternal…
…i have also no problem with admitting the mystery that’s life. Yes, life as we know it, and the existence of the universe, is a mystery. You’ve chosen to call that mystery God, and i can’t for the life of me resign myself to believing in the christian God simply for the fact that there’s no evidence for his existence…
…that’s really it. Nothing more to it…
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…the question remains: did Stalin kill all those people because he was an atheist, or because he was a megalomaniac who used communist ideology to usurp his power?[/quote]No, but his atheism (functional anyway) gave him no reason not to.[/quote]
…if that is a valid condemnation of atheism, every atrocity committed in the name of religion is a condemnation of that religion. But then you’ll just make excuses…
[quote]FrozenNinja wrote:
So my question for YOU is: Do most atheists believe in the Big Bang theory and Evolution to assusage their denial of a Diety presence?[/quote]
Atheism is a denial of the religious persons assertion that a God exists based on the lack of evidence they present. Nothing more. Atheism is NOT a belief system in itself.
There are many Atheists who believe different things (just like Christians).
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…the question remains: did Stalin kill all those people because he was an atheist, or because he was a megalomaniac who used communist ideology to usurp his power?[/quote]
Both. He wasn’t just atheist, he fucking hated everything to do with religion. There were no shortage of people murdered because they were religious. I can look it up for you, but I prefer you do the leg work. I got a big squat day ahead of me. …Get it?![/quote]
…religion was a threat to his totalitarian regime, and any threat was crushed. He didn’t hate religion because he was an atheist; he hated religion because it was a threat. Ideology fuels zeal, and zeal inspires people to do [horrific] things. A simple lack of beliefs in a deity in- and of itself isn’t empowering you, it liberates you…
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…the question remains: did Stalin kill all those people because he was an atheist, or because he was a megalomaniac who used communist ideology to usurp his power?[/quote]
Both. He wasn’t just atheist, he fucking hated everything to do with religion. There were no shortage of people murdered because they were religious. I can look it up for you, but I prefer you do the leg work. I got a big squat day ahead of me. …Get it?![/quote]
…religion was a threat to his totalitarian regime, and any threat was crushed. He didn’t hate religion because he was an atheist; he hated religion because it was a threat. Ideology fuels zeal, and zeal inspires people to do [horrific] things. A simple lack of beliefs in a deity in- and of itself isn’t empowering you, it liberates you…
[/quote]
Both Atheist people and Religious people have committed mass genocide throughout the ages. In many of these instances, it was neither religion or lack of faith that caused this, but the geopolitics at the time.
Somebody point me to one historical text outside of the Bible that refers to Christ. Yes I read ZEBs link and skipped right to “The External test” which made me not want to read anything else by that author ever again, so I dont know what the rest says.
Thanks!
[quote]milktruck wrote:
Somebody point me to one historical text outside of the Bible that refers to Christ. Yes I read ZEBs link and skipped right to “The External test” which made me not want to read anything else by that author ever again, so I dont know what the rest says.
Thanks!
[/quote]
If you’re talking about historical evidence (like a Roman report of the execution), you will find none. But everyone here has already discussed this in a few threads.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…the question remains: did Stalin kill all those people because he was an atheist, or because he was a megalomaniac who used communist ideology to usurp his power?[/quote]No, but his atheism (functional anyway) gave him no reason not to.
[/quote]
Oh so what is funtional atheism besides something you made up in your mind as bad? Does this mean if you found out there was no god, or that god didnt give a shit what you did, that YOU would start killing people?
[quote]FrozenNinja wrote:
So to cliff note the above, which was info I found interesting, research the following:
Evidence of Polonium Halos (this is a big arguement)
The Theory of Thermodynamics
The Theory of Chaos
The Big Bang Theory seriously messes with these simple rules of science to a degree that frustrated me greatly. When I was 16 I set out to disprove the existence of God from my own personal research. I couldn’t. I think atheists are too quick to judge anyone who believes in any type of diety.
So roundabout way to answer your question, but the axiomatic structure of atheist belief leads to my incredulous nature.
So my question for YOU is: Do most atheists believe in the Big Bang theory and Evolution to assusage their denial of a Diety presence?[/quote]
Im pretty sure you just havent thought this through. Chaos theory doesnt mean I cant build a sand castle or that patterns cant emerge in systems with certain characteristics. Your thermodynamics problem is one of scope. And belief in a singularity, while slightly less ridiculous as praying to a zombie to save you if you eat his flesh and think about him on sundays, doesnt have anything definitive to say about the existance of a deity, just maybe certain religous mythology about the origin of the universe.
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
[quote]milktruck wrote:
Somebody point me to one historical text outside of the Bible that refers to Christ. Yes I read ZEBs link and skipped right to “The External test” which made me not want to read anything else by that author ever again, so I dont know what the rest says.
Thanks!
[/quote]
If you’re talking about historical evidence (like a Roman report of the execution), you will find none. But everyone here has already discussed this in a few threads.[/quote]
Can you sum it up for me? This is something I am interested in because I am going to write a self referential book about myself doing even cooler miracles and scatter it around the globe so that one day I can be the head of a religion once Im long gone, if that is the way it works.
I think most people on here don’t understand what Atheism really means…
Atheism is NOT meant to disprove God through evidence. Atheism is the refutation of the religions person’s assertion that a God exists because of LACK OF EVIDENCE of the religious person’s side.
If I make a claim like leprechauns are in my back yard, I’m the one making the claim so it’s MY JOB to prove this through evidence (pictures, video, interview with leprechaun, etc).
[quote]milktruck wrote:
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
[quote]milktruck wrote:
Somebody point me to one historical text outside of the Bible that refers to Christ. Yes I read ZEBs link and skipped right to “The External test” which made me not want to read anything else by that author ever again, so I dont know what the rest says.
Thanks!
[/quote]
If you’re talking about historical evidence (like a Roman report of the execution), you will find none. But everyone here has already discussed this in a few threads.[/quote]
Can you sum it up for me? This is something I am interested in because I am going to write a self referential book about myself doing even cooler miracles and scatter it around the globe so that one day I can be the head of a religion once Im long gone, if that is the way it works.[/quote]
That sounds like fun, but don’t be a jerk on here.