The issue with atheism

a reply to: Ruiner1978

Kinda puts us back to issues of belief and faith again, say half a dozen mates said they'd all seen the Hairy Hands of Dartmoor grab the steering wheel of their minibus then I'd believe they were telling me the truth as far as they perceived their reality, even if they were all off their head, the exact same group hallucination would be doubtful to me.
I wouldn't believe in the hairy hands though because pics or it didn't happen, but I'd believe they experienced something which they all thought was real.
Faith is a can of worms for sure, but not believing in deities requires no faith.

originally posted by: reject
a reply to: Raggedyman

Really?

What new testament version are you reading?

Because the version I read is just chomping at the bit to destroy unbelievers; and I'm not just talking about that god-awful Revelation.

believe or else

Believe or else, it's a choice, it's your choice.

Nowhere in that scripture are Christians not called on to love those lead astray by the devil
No called on to judge, alienate or hate

It's a prophecy, it's talking of a future judgement, not now.

originally posted by: noonebutme

But I can be proven -- I can give you a swift kick to your bollocks and you'll know I'm here.

So nice of you.

Also i don't have 'bollocks' LMFAO

You simply don't like people who don't mystify the universe in religious or spiritual terms.

I don't have a religion, i don't believe in any

originally posted by: reject
I am expecting my response to this thread to either:

1) fall on deaf ears

Or

2) preach to the "choir"


That's the thing with Christianity, with all religionists actually; it's invested too heavily in "god against devil😈."

Not just good/right against evil/wrong, they've anthropomorphized their beliefs.

In their minds, the different positions have taken on cosmic importance.

Sure, they will deny this and scoff at it.

But everyone can see the pathological nature of their mindset.

To the religionists, everyone else is led astray by the devil; only they are on God's side.

You can take the devil as challenge to your progression or you can complain their evilness or you can entirely scoff at it. None of that matter to me. It's not the key point of my existence.

originally posted by: reject
Never mind if they are their fellow christians/Muslims/Buddhists/whatever, if they don't belong to their exact same denomination/sect/tribe/whatever, they're led astray by the devil.

If you don't believe in the devil, then why does it bother you?

originally posted by: reject
Their minds are conditioned to see enemies; braiwashed, actually, with delusions of grandeur.

Well, you can say the same with Abiogenises' Frankenstein and Panspermia's hypocrite magical microscopic outer space life.
It was this delusion that inspire man to actually fly and discover telescope.

originally posted by: reject
They also exhibit extreme persecution complex when, in truth, they demand to always have their (i.e. "god's") way.

Fundamentalist Atheist like you and zealout religious relegate the world into primitive society. You view conflict negatively, like the devil.

originally posted by: EasternShadow

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
Creatio Ex Materia means creation from an existing matter

The bible doesn't teach Creatio Ex Nihilo or Creatio Ex Materia. It teaches Creatio Ex Deo. God is not some kind of "eternal matter" you can detect like dark matter. Now will you stop with Latin language. I really hate Septuagint or others Greek's variant Philosophy. It makes me headache.

I would prefer Hebrew or English. Lol.

I never said the bible teaches creation ex nihilo. Apparently, you were unable to read the entire Wikipedia entry. I'm sure you know better than all the theologians. I put that up so people can try and think on their own with some ideas. That post explicitly gives a definition of Ex nihilo, Ex material, and Ex Deo. There's really enough people here that think they know all the secrets of the Universe/Multiverse/God.
Personally, I like the Vedic scriptures and cosmology.
Now since you know everything about this....I thought I would post the Hindu id

The RigVeda quotes "If in the beginning there was neither Being nor Non-Being, neither air nor sky, what was there? Who or what oversaw it? What was it when there was no darkness, light, life, or death? We can only say that there was the One, that which breathed of itself deep in the void, that which was heat and became desire and the germ of spirit," which is suggestive of the fact that Ex nihilo creator was always there and he is not controlled by time or by any previous creation.

The Bhagavad Gita (BG) states the eternality of matter and its transformability clearly and succinctly: "Material nature and the living entities should be understood to be beginningless. Their transformations and the modes of matter are products of material nature."[41] The opening words of Krishna in BG 2.12-13 also imply this, as do the doctrines referred to in BG 16.8 as explained by the commentator Vadiraja Tirtha.
Most philosophical schools in Hinduism maintain that material creation started with some minute particle (or seed) which had to be co-eternal or a part of ultimate reality (Brahman). This minute starting point is also the point into which all creation contracts at the end of each cycle. This concept varies between various traditions, such as the Vishishtadvaita tradition (which asserts that the Universe forms a part of God, created from some aspect of His divinity) and Tamil Shaiva Siddhanta traditions (which state that the minute initial particle (shuddha Maya) has always existed and was never created).
[42]

en.wikipedia.org...

I am personally of the mind of the cyclic cosmology, the continuous inbreath and outbreath of Brahma.

According to Hindu vedic cosmology, there is no absolute start to time, as it is considered infinite and cyclic.[2] Similarly, the space and universe has neither start nor end, rather it is cyclical. The current universe is just the start of a present cycle preceded by an infinite number of universes and to be followed by another infinite number of universes.
The dominant theme in Puranic Hindu cosmology, state Chapman and Driver, is of cycles and repetition. There are multiple universes, each takes birth from chaos, grows, decays and dies into chaos, to be reborn again. Further, there are different and parallel realities. Brahma's one day equals 4.32 billion years which is a Kalpa.[4] Each Kalpa is subdivided into four yuga (caturyuga, also called mahayuga)).[5] These are krita (or satya), treta, dvapara and kali yugas. The current time is stated to be one of kali yuga. The starting year, length of each, or the grand total, is not consistent in the Puranas. According to Ludo Rocher, the total of four yugas is typically 4,320,000 years, of which 432,000 years is assigned to be the duration of the kali yuga.[6][7][note 1]
[3]

en.wikipedia.org...
I also believe that real science fits in and does not conflict with classical and esoteric knowledge, but again, I'm sure you are the expert here

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
I never said the bible teaches creation ex nihilo. Apparently, you were unable to read the entire Wikipedia entry.

I didn't read the entire Wikipedia entry because it try to make sense with nihilism using ancient Greek twisted logic, which is not the teaching of Bible. There is no nothingness ( Ex nihilio ) in the beginning, as well as matter ( Ex materia ). Because God is neither both. The Bible teach Everlasting God ( Deum Perpetua in Latin ), and the wiki entry make zero relation to that.

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus I'm sure you know better than all the theologians. I put that up so people can try and think on their own with some ideas.

I never claim to know better than all theologians. I just hate Greek/Latin translations because they have so much in common with Platonism theaterical wordplay. So many twist yet little logic.

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus That post explicitly gives a definition of Ex nihilo, Ex material, and Ex Deo.

It does. I just wish it would explain Ex Deo ( from God ) better, instead of sprouting irrelevant argument with Biblical teaching.

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
There's really enough people here that think they know all the secrets of the Universe/Multiverse/God.

There're even more people who are not here, know a lot more secrets of the Universe/Multiverse/God. It just a matter whether their metaphysic opinion consistently logic or not.

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
Personally, I like the Vedic scriptures and cosmology.

I have no problem with any ideas as long as they remain consistent with their principles.

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
The RigVeda quotes "If in the beginning there was neither Being nor Non-Being, neither air nor sky, what was there? Who or what oversaw it? What was it when there was no darkness, light, life, or death? We can only say that there was the One, that which breathed of itself deep in the void, that which was heat and became desire and the germ of spirit," which is suggestive of the fact that Ex nihilo creator was always there and he is not controlled by time or by any previous creation.

In one short simple sentence, in the beginning there was the One. See? How easy it is without the need to introduce Ex nihilo. The One creator was always there and He is not nothingness, therefore Ex nihilo is a false concept.

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
The Bhagavad Gita (BG) states the eternality of matter and its transformability clearly and succinctly: "Material nature and the living entities should be understood to be beginningless. Their transformations and the modes of matter are products of material nature."[41] The opening words of Krishna in BG 2.12-13 also imply this, as do the doctrines referred to in BG 16.8 as explained by the commentator Vadiraja Tirtha.

OK, Let's examine whether this principle is consistent with the rest.

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
Most philosophical schools in Hinduism maintain that material creation started with some minute particle (or seed) which had to be co-eternal or a part of ultimate reality (Brahman).

See? Already in the introduction, "Material creation started with some minute particle" is contradicted with the doctrine of Beginningless Material nature.

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
This minute starting point is also the point into which all creation contracts at the end of each cycle. This concept varies between various traditions, such as the Vishishtadvaita tradition (which asserts that the Universe forms a part of God, created from some aspect of His divinity) and Tamil Shaiva Siddhanta traditions (which state that the minute initial particle (shuddha Maya) has always existed and was never created).
[42]

en.wikipedia.org...
If it always exist then what's with "the minute starting point"?

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
I am personally of the mind of the cyclic cosmology, the continuous inbreath and outbreath of Brahma.

I believe in cyclic cosmology too, but to define each cyclic cosmology starting point is false way to identify the infinity of god. Cosmos has beginning and may re-cycle ( as indicate cosmic microwave background ), but god does not. God is outside time and space. Therefore God is outside cosmos.

If Hindu believe Brahma is matter, then I can't object because it about faith. All I can say is Abrahamic religion don't teach physical God.

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
According to Hindu vedic cosmology, there is no absolute start to time, as it is considered infinite and cyclic.[2] Similarly, the space and universe has neither start nor end, rather it is cyclical. The current universe is just the start of a present cycle preceded by an infinite number of universes and to be followed by another infinite number of universes.

Then perhaps it's wiser to accept that ex nilio doesn't exist. There is no beginning and ending in the background of cosmos. Hindu believe in everlasting matter. I don't. But I do believe in everlasting non matter such as energy.

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
The dominant theme in Puranic Hindu cosmology, state Chapman and Driver, is of cycles and repetition. There are multiple universes, each takes birth from chaos, grows, decays and dies into chaos, to be reborn again. Further, there are different and parallel realities. Brahma's one day equals 4.32 billion years which is a Kalpa.[4] Each Kalpa is subdivided into four yuga (caturyuga, also called mahayuga)).[5] These are krita (or satya), treta, dvapara and kali yugas. The current time is stated to be one of kali yuga. The starting year, length of each, or the grand total, is not consistent in the Puranas. According to Ludo Rocher, the total of four yugas is typically 4,320,000 years, of which 432,000 years is assigned to be the duration of the kali yuga.[6][7][note 1]
en.wikipedia.org...
I also believe that real science fits in and does not conflict with classical and esoteric knowledge, but again, I'm sure you are the expert here

As I said, regardless of starting and ending every cyclic cosmos, there is something else outside Big Bang theory such background microwave radiation. Therefore Big bang is not the theory of origin of all thing.

Atheist do not know what. Abrahamic religion stated spiritual God. Hindu stated physical God. Buddha stated origin of life is not important. I think that's all I can summarized. For now.

a reply to: noonebutme

To you, as well as to the individual who used the old lol to ridicule....I offer this

Brahman is known as the first being (Adi Purusha). He is uncreated, self-existing and before everything, known and unknown. So also, he is the only reality which remains constant when everything else changes or becomes dissolved or withdrawn in the end. Therefore, practically it is impossible for anyone, even gods, or those who manifest from him, to know him and his state before existence and after existence, except through inference or verbal testimony.

he Brihadaranyaka Upanishad (5.5.1) declares that Brahman is Truth (Satyam Brahma). While the assertion seems to be very simple, problems arise when you try to understand or define truth. Is it what you perceive, experience, or know, or is it something beyond all that? Indeed, no one can truly answer this question. The truth of truth is indeterminate, relational, and relative in the world of duality, while the absolute truths are completely beyond our grasp.
Even science cannot truly and satisfactorily answer this question. Those who are familiar with quantum physics know that at the subatomic level the essential reality of elementary particles is indeterminate or indescribable because it arises only in a state of interaction. In their natural state the subatomic particles exist not as constants but as probabilities. Perhaps, they may not even exist or do not have any specific location. Alternatively, the same particle may simultaneously exist at different locations. Their behavior is unpredictable and random. They exist only when they interact with something or leap from one orbit to another. When nothing disturbs them, they do not exist at all. Physicists are baffled by these contradictions and are still grappling with these findings.

www.hinduwebsite.com...

May you and all the others here enjoy your evening

a reply to: EasternShadow


Ive just posted what is closer to my personal view point. You can stop trying to beat me over the head. Perhaps we are not so different, but I sense that you view yourself as the superior mystic. I have no use for that. As for the matter issue, please see my post regarding quantum theory. My current belief is that quantum theory is the scientific proof that we exist in the mind of Brahma/God/Yahweh. Also I am of the view that life can only come from life. I merely posted variants for people to compare and contrast, which evidently you overlooked. Compare and contrast means you present several opposing points not that you expressly agree with either viewpoint. Several other individuals brought up the same thing....the notion that nothing comes from nothing. Ex nihilo posits that something comes from nothing. Ex material posits that there is required something to produce something. Which is it honey? Does the Universe come from something or nothing? Or is it something unknowable? Brahman is both the manifest and the unmanifest.

Also, when trying to reply to people and using their posts, please try to do better with your differentiation between the personal views of the poster, and the external material which is quoted. Because in my original post I merely posted several terms which I thought related to another or several other's posts, I didnt quantify my personal view.

a reply to: EasternShadow

Ok about the cosmic radiation issue. You seem to suggest that it is opposed to the theory of Big Bang. Yet a five minute or less search I found where it says that the cosmic radiation background appeared "After the Universe came into being." Are you suggesting that the crb existed before the Universe came into being? My impression is that the crb is still part of the material creation.

This is really very interesting and I thank you for pointing it out to me.
And then there's this

Before the creation of the CMB, the universe was a hot, dense and opaque plasma containing both matter and energy. Photons could not travel freely, so no light escaped from those earlier times.

which states there was both matter and energy. Is it your point that before the Creation, there was energy but no matter? Perhaps I am misunderstanding you.
www.space.com...
Also if you don't mind, as this whole thread was about atheism, I think that atheists belief in no God is based on a misunderstanding of what "God" really is, perhaps if you will, an anthropomorphic god as some kind of person. Science can be devoid of spirit, as dry mental exercise in trying to prove something which we are unable to quantify because it is infinite.

originally posted by: reject

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: rejectI am not saying Christians get it right, they don't

But you got it right, yes?

Lol.

Classic cognitive dissonance.

You just proved my point for me.

Love it

That's a big word, you should understand it before using it

Ha ha ha

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

No thanks. I don't believe in fairy tales. No one ever said science can answer everything. What it does is provide a framework of impartial analysis to discover the reasons behind observations.

That is the complete opposite to what religion does. Religion is believing in the absence fact. So - no thanks.

Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
That's a big word, you should understand it before using it

Ha ha ha

I thought you said you never came to 'atheist' threads and bemoaned people..?

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: Ruiner1978

Kinda puts us back to issues of belief and faith again, say half a dozen mates said they'd all seen the Hairy Hands of Dartmoor grab the steering wheel of their minibus then I'd believe they were telling me the truth as far as they perceived their reality, even if they were all off their head, the exact same group hallucination would be doubtful to me.
I wouldn't believe in the hairy hands though because pics or it didn't happen, but I'd believe they experienced something which they all thought was real.
Faith is a can of worms for sure, but not believing in deities requires no faith.

I get ya.

What if you were one of the witnesses of The Hairy Hands? How do you suppose that would play out?

a reply to: Ruiner1978

Interesting question, I'd have to experience it but I'd keep an open mind

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
Ive just posted what is closer to my personal view point. You can stop trying to beat me over the head.

Nope. I just disagree with your notion that the Bible teach nothingness, because God is not matter and nothingness.

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
Perhaps we are not so different,

We are not so different.

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
but I sense that you view yourself as the superior mystic. I have no use for that.

If that the case then perhaps I should not express my disagreement in public forum.

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
As for the matter issue, please see my post regarding quantum theory. My current belief is that quantum theory is the scientific proof that we exist in the mind of Brahma/God/Yahweh.

Something exist in the mind indicate unreal imagination.

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
Also I am of the view that life can only come from life.

I agree.

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
I merely posted variants for people to compare and contrast, which evidently you overlooked. Compare and contrast means you present several opposing points not that you expressly agree with either viewpoint. Several other individuals brought up the same thing....the notion that nothing comes from nothing. Ex nihilo posits that something comes from nothing.

God is not nothing. Brahma is not nothing. Therefore Ex nihilo is theological false.

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
Ex material posits that there is required something to produce something. Which is it honey? Does the Universe come from something or nothing? Or is it something unknowable? Brahman is both the manifest and the unmanifest.

This is the perspective from Hinduism. I'm not saying it's wrong. It just that Abrahamic Religion don't teach God's matter property.

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
Also, when trying to reply to people and using their posts, please try to do better with your differentiation between the personal views of the poster, and the external material which is quoted. Because in my original post I merely posted several terms which I thought related to another or several other's posts, I didnt quantify my personal view.

Yes, and it's my personal view that Latin translation of Greek Septuagint is very poor to narrate God Infinity.

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
a reply to: EasternShadow

Ok about the cosmic radiation issue.

Is it your point that before the Creation, there was energy but no matter? Perhaps I am misunderstanding you.
www.space.com...

Yes, that is what I try to explain to you. Pure Energy always exist. Energy was converted to the elementary particles (quarks, gluons, leptons etc...) from which protons and neutrons were formed. From these, atoms of different elements were produced and they became matter.

Einstein's equation E=mc'2,
Matter is condensed energy so through the condensing of preexisting energy we can procreate matter but not from NOTHING.

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
Also if you don't mind, as this whole thread was about atheism, I think that atheists belief in no God is based on a misunderstanding of what "God" really is, perhaps if you will, an anthropomorphic god as some kind of person. Science can be devoid of spirit, as dry mental exercise in trying to prove something which we are unable to quantify because it is infinite.

Atheist are not looking for who. They are looking for what. They're not looking for anything outside physics. Perhaps quantum mechanics may be able to describe God mathematically. Perhaps not. I don't know. Perhaps if we can demonstrate a stasis world without time arrow and enthropy, Atheist could view there are two universes where time arrow move in different direction. Therefore, it is mathematically impossible for things to happen at random chance without interference of Intelligent "being". This is, of course, my opinion only.

originally posted by: noonebutme

originally posted by: Raggedyman
That's a big word, you should understand it before using it

Ha ha ha

I thought you said you never came to 'atheist' threads and bemoaned people..?

Well you don't know my posting history
There is the ideal me and there is the real me
Just that I am working on the ideal

Hard to suffer a fool

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: noonebutme

Here we go with the hate again!

If your'e an atheist you abandon the
scientific method when it says life
can only come from life. Example
after example day after day and every
second it's repeated to you that
life comes only from life. Life never
comes from nothing. Not by a single bit
of evidence.

Do you believe that life only
Comes from life?

My belief that life comes from a living God
is on the table. You can't even argue
against my belief with nothing on the
table. Much less ridicule like a child.

Hows that for logic?

Rna most definately can form naturally occurring chemical reactions. Dna very well may as well.

THE latest twist in the origin-of-life tale is double helical. Chemists are close to demonstrating that the building blocks of DNA can form spontaneously from chemicals thought to be present on the primordial Earth. If they succeed, their work would suggest that DNA could have predated the birth of life.

DNA is essential to almost all life on Earth, yet most biologists think that life began with RNA. Just like DNA, it stores genetic information. What’s more, RNA can fold into complex shapes that can clamp onto other molecules and speed up chemical reactions, just like a protein, and it is structurally simpler than DNA, so might be easier to make.

After decades of trying, in 2009 researchers finally managed to generate RNA using chemicals that probably existed on the early Earth. Matthew Powner, now at University College London, and his colleagues synthesised two of the four nucleotides that make up RNA. Their achievement suggested that RNA may have formed spontaneously – powerful support for the idea that life began in an “RNA world”.

www.newscientist.com...

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Woodcarver

Explaining that molecules are inanimate?
That's your answer? Everyone knows that.
It does nothing to explain your thinking
against the only observable evidence that
life only comes from life. Did you just
abandon the scientific method? Why not
just say life doesn't come only from
life because fire engines? Quit dodging the
question?

Yes, but those inanimate molecules combine to form living beings. Therefore, life is made up of inanimate molecules.

The opposite of worship is to hate, to shame, to disrespect, to scorn, to denigrate, to make fun of and that is exactly what some people do. Why would you do so to God if God doesn't exist.

If God is an invented word a true atheist would never use the word.

i hear you coming, you don't believe in the existence of unicorns either but there is a universal image behind the word unicorn and is resembled in all drawings the same, a horse with a horn but perhaps you also think a drawing of a man with a beard on a cloud is what God is, and there's where the discussion ends.

either you admit unicorns exist as illustrations, but why would a man with a beard on a cloud be God?

you're so bothered by God you deny his existence

atheists have been denigrating God endlessly, in theory you're only an atheist if you don't use the word God at all or only to refer to a man with a bear on a cloud in a drawing.