What is with all the threads attacking atheism/atheists lately?

Originally posted by Elohimsciences


No, it is because this site has been infested! They are those here now whose purpose is to ruin the site. Like ridiculous threads, over flagging of threads that should be junked and causing arguments. Also they post topics that are so ridiculously stupid that it makes everyone on here to look like nutbars.

.

Are you religious by any chance? It sounds like you are blaming ATS for your own delusions. If you don't like it, don't read it. If you don't like the site, then leave and don't let the door hit you on the butt on the way out. Thanks for your reply.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by adjensen

 

My state of faith is a lifetime journey, but the bit that opened my eyes came out of some things that I was doing in maths and physics

Well what about "The mandelbrot set" or the "fibonacci sequence" these mathematical formulas imply infinity. Could you entertain the POSSIBILITY that reality could be infinite, and there is no creator required?

I think that we've had this discussion before, or at least I've had it with someone else on ATS who took umbrage with my perspective, but I'll point out, yet again, that I'm not a fundamentalist, and my view of the Universe probably isn't all that much different from yours. Given that my degrees, work and a lot of studies are in various sciences, I'm probably even more scientifically dogmatic than you, in fact.

Have you ever wondered why I'm not an evangelist? Why I've said, time after time, that I don't really care if you believe in God or not? It's because I do see things that way that you do, and I respect and appreciate that this is your point of view -- it's a perfectly reasonable one. I came up with a different final conclusion, but that's me, that's not you.

As for your post, I'm not sure that anyone questions infinity, though spatially, it's not provable in a meaningful way, so it's a matter of mathematics, which supports it. Or did you mean eternity?

I'd like you to think about something esoteric, which is the sort of thing that I ran across in one of those "why" contemplations.

Draw a circle on a piece of paper, and next to it, write X^2 + Y^2 = r^2

The formula is that of a circle, but not the circle that you've drawn, because that's not a perfect circle. It's not the formula, in fact, of any "real" circle, because they are all imperfect. Right down to the molecular level of the paper and ink, slight imperfections would prevent anything from actually creating that perfect circle.

Your drawn circle is a reasonable, but imperfect, representation of that circle in the maths.

Okay, now put the paper aside and think about that perfect circle. Depending on what your capacity for visualizing maths is, it might come quick, or it might take time. But eventually, you'll see it. You might even say "aha! I see it!" But what are you seeing, and what are you seeing it with?

The mathematical, idealized circle doesn't exist in reality. It is eternal. It was never created, it can never be destroyed, it just simply is, in a place where you can't touch it, see it, smell it, measure it, or do anything with it. It was there before the creation of the Universe, it will be there after the Universe goes out of existence through entropy.

By thinking about visualizing that circle, you didn't "make it" or cause its existence, you just discovered something that has been sitting there, out of your realization, for all time. Now that you're aware of it, you can conceptualize it, talk about it, use it in practical applications, but you can never go back to it and produce it in anything other than your own mind.

That's not God, but that's a shadow of that essence, a sense of what it means to be insensible, out of this reality, and yet accessible by us.

two thousand and ten years and 64 pages in, we still dont know if this guy/girl is a myth.

anything else that ran this long without no proof would be discredited and forgoton about

I'd just like to wrap this up with a post I made to Dr Milo in response to a post on the Big Bang Theory. It isn't irrelevant because all these things are inter-connected and directly relate to the rise we've witnessed in the materialistic, atheist, post-Kantian philosophy which has so dogged current thinking and undermined every aspect of society in the western world. It directly answers the OPs question as to why atheism is under such tremendous attack, and why it is such a cul-de-sac in human thought.

'It's an absurd proposition [the big Bang]: that something can be created from nothing... it get's us no where & has in fact, to my mind at least, set us back over a hundred years. I feel we have all been grossly mislead, and that our fundamental misunderstanding over the very nature of matter has led directly to a culture based on materialistic values, a value-set which has actively undermined the moral & ethical backbone of society itself.... an ethos which has separated us from the true reality of existence and warped our perspective of Life, and one which is directly responsible for the very destruction of that Life. In this it is as redundant as our current understanding of the Theory of Evolution which assumes life spontaneously began from.... nothing.1

I'd like to be one of the first few who thank Dr Milo for his brilliance. I fully appreciate how difficult it is bringing such a theory to an established mind-set, against the traditional Standard Model, effectively refuting the divergence between the observed & theoretical which has side-tracked humanity over the past century, if not 300 yrs since Newton. You're a very brave, intellectually honest, far-thinking individual. Yet in essence... it was all so obvious, & I have to say the obvious truth, in all its simplicity, is brilliance in itself.

I studied the 3 sciences & biology to undergraduate level, followed medicine but gave it up to follow my own passion: the book arts.2 I'd always kept a lay interest in physics & cosmology, and read widely around the subjects. It was this interest that initially led to Geof Haselhurst's site, then directly to your own papers.

I don't think you're alone either. There's some fascinating work being pushed forward by the likes of Dr. Eugene Podkletnov, and more recently perhaps, that of Dr Martin Tajmar. Like yourself they haven't rewritten the mathematics, but their experimental work has confounded the traditional scientific mind-set.

I believe humanity is at a cross-roads. I believe your work, along with a few other pioneers will radically reshape our understanding of reality, matter, and our very existence. Thank you so very much. It's about time!

1 I could go on & on here, but I can see no physical, scientific or other evidence to support Darwinian Theory: there was no 'slow, gradual incremental change'... far from it the reverse is true. Natural Selection is specie reductive & mutation cannot account for diversification: even E.Coli remain E.Coli after billions of generations..., and we are zillions of miles away from knowing how the first cells formed - entities which are in themselves supremely dynamic, complicated structures. So biology, as the least scientific of all sciences, has effectively led us down a similarly materialist path.
2 Follow your Bliss. Joseph Campbell et al'

Atheism has no place in an objective, rational and scientific mind: at the very least one should be agnostic

I think where simple minds fail miserably, like maddnessinmysoul's feable attempts to twist a metaphorical notion of an idea that 'comes around to smack [one] in the back of the head' to strawmen physical threats, is that they're so fixed in their own [atheistic] dogma they're blind to everything but they're own very subjective opinions. We often 'throw' ideas around, and often those ideas do in fact hit us in the back of the head! In maddness' case it's understandable, as a 20 something young lad with very limited personal experience of reality, barely out of nappies, he has virtually no experience of Life on which to base any believable personal philosophy. His subjective opinion is empty & worthless at best.

I have referred to Dr. Milo's theory of the Standard Wave Motion of matter, a theory which unites Space, Time, Motion and Matter and for the first time unites quantum theory with Einstein's theory of relativity.

reply to post by adjensen


It then rather boils down to your own understanding of the word 'God'

I prefer Spinoza's view, as does Einstein:

I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings.

I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man.

A human being is part of the whole called by us universe, a part limited in time and space. We experience ourselves, our thoughts and feelings as something separate from the rest. A kind of optical delusion of consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from the prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty. The true value of a human being is determined by the measure and the sense in which they have obtained liberation from the self. We shall require a substantially new manner of thinking if humanity is to survive.

The most beautiful and most profound experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their primitive forms - this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness. Albert Einstein 1954

As only One thing, Space, exists, there can be no boundary to Space (as a boundary is between two things) thus Space is unbounded and therefore Infinite. As Blake famously wrote:
If the doors of perception were cleansed, everything would be seen as it is, infinite.

Spinoza states the logic of One Infinite Substance:
No two or more substances can have the same attribute and it appertains to the nature of substance that it should exist. It must therefore exist finitely or infinitely. But not finitely. For it would then be limited by some other substance of the same nature which also of necessity must exist: and then two substances would be granted having the same attribute, which is absurd. It will exist, therefore, infinitely.

God is then that infinite, unknowable, space. The space that binds everything together, & realizes everything. It is the 'thing' that is all things.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


Hows this?

When a lier gets caught in a lie their heart rate raises, they sweat, become nervous and sometimes become aggressive defending themselves.

When someone inwardly questions their own faith or beliefs they tend to react the same way outwardly.

When someone has doubt about something they have been told or are expected to believe they react the same way.

When someone has insecurities about themselves and their thoughts they just join the crowd and when questioned without a answer they act the same way.

When someone who has no doubt and are solid in their faith, they listen, question, evaluate, and say thank you for the input. They do not act the same way.

Thats what I got.

reply to post by IAMIAM


First of all...Thank you for the rebuke back on page 43. It shook my core to type those words " I'm not saying it's impossible without a god". It is impossible without a God. But I chose the course of the benefit of the doubt.....again. It is time for the day of doubt to end.
As far as me judging goes, it is myself that I have judged. And it is time for that to end as well. But regarding the judgment of this world. I desire it above all else. And any friend of mine would desire it likewise.
They can stop looking. And futily spending their worthless money. He's back in black and he snuck in so good they never saw Him coming.......LOL. It's actually quite hilarious...we'll all have a good laugh about it.
As for the vessels of wrath.....feed them some more. We want them nice and strong. Plump for the picking...so to speak.

reply to post by adjensen

The mathematical, idealized circle doesn't exist in reality. It is eternal. It was never created, it can never be destroyed, it just simply is, in a place where you can't touch it, see it, smell it, measure it, or do anything with it.

I understand that ideas are bulletproof (and and thus eternal if reality is eternal) but you CAN do something wtih them - You can make ideas practical (maths, architecture, shapes, art)

It was there before the creation of the Universe, it will be there after the Universe goes out of existence through entropy.

Well, we don't know if there was a previous universe before this universe, one theory is that universes (within the multiverse) compete with eachother and the best universes prevail. Just a theory though.

My point is that man does know very little at the moment, we don't know if this is the first and last universe, or whether there are many.....is reality infinity? Is there a multiverse? A macroverse? Is reality a hologram?

Is there a creator? Does reality require causation? Or is reality infinity? Has it always been? Will it always be?

These are the fundamental questions i ask myself before asserting "faith" in a creator. I think this is the most scientific approach, my approach comes from Agnosticism.

Of course there still could be a creator, but who created the creator? Who created the creator of the creator? An infinite regress it seems.

I still don't rule a ctreator out, although i highly doubt it (personally) and i would be unwise (I think) to assert 1 single belief without knowing all of the possibilities and having evidence to back them up.

The universe does seem to work very mathematically, is the universe mathematical? Is must be, we've used mathematics to describe it. Does that imply a creator? I'm not so sure.

Again, i understand that the idea of a circle or other geometric shapes are "ideas". "Ideas" can't be destroyed, they are bulletproof.

So far, i have seen no logical, mathematical or empirical evidence for the existence of a creator. I think it would be wrong to point to maths, physics and pressume it's "GOD". I don't think many scientists would be dishonest enough to say there is a creator without evidence, even if it is ultimately true.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by adjensen

 

The mathematical, idealized circle doesn't exist in reality. It is eternal. It was never created, it can never be destroyed, it just simply is, in a place where you can't touch it, see it, smell it, measure it, or do anything with it.

I understand that ideas are bulletproof (and and thus eternal if reality is eternal) but you CAN do something wtih them - You can make ideas practical (maths, architecture, shapes, art)

Yes, but the circle I'm referring to isn't an idea. It exists, whether there is anyone or anything to know about it or not. If the Universe was devoid of everything but the rules that allow it to exist, the circle would still be there.

It was there before the creation of the Universe, it will be there after the Universe goes out of existence through entropy.

Well, we don't know if there was a previous universe before this universe, one theory is that universes (within the multiverse) compete with eachother and the best universes prevail. Just a theory though.

Correct, but unless the rules change between universes (which would be very interesting) then that eternal circle existed in a previous instantiation of reality, and will exist in the next.

Or is reality infinity? Has it always been? Will it always be?

Again, I'm struggling with your use of the word "infinity". If you mean "eternal", without beginning or end, that's not really the same thing. Reality cannot be infinite in dimension, at least not practically so. Time is infinite, but only because time is just a measurement and infinity is the mathematical term that means unmeasurable.

But the answer to the question "is reality eternal" is fundamentally unanswerable. The Universe is not, the Laws of Thermodynamics tells us that things will eventually wind down. But there is no way, and will never be a way, for us to see what lies before the Big Bang, or what lies after the Universe turns out the lights.

Of course there still could be a creator, but who created the creator? Who created the creator of the creator? An infinite regress it seems.

Not necessarily. Most non-theists would say that reality "just is". They don't know how it came into being (that peering into the void before the Big Bang) so they're content to just say "nothing created it, it just is." I don't see anything wrong with the statement, and there's nothing in there to conflict with you multiple universe theory and other options.

The theist, however, breaks things into two components. There is the creator (God, in my case) and there is the creation (reality.) If we presuppose that the Universe can have the quality that "nothing created it, it just is" then why can't something else? Why can't God, for example?

One thing needs to be made clear, though, and this is my personal view. In my mind, reality does not necessitate a creator. God does not have to exist because there is a Universe. But it does allow for him, to exist exactly as theology says that he is. Eternal. Unchangeable. Without beginning, without end. Our Universe is clearly not eternal, so that which is (like our mathematical circle) must exist outside of it.

The universe does seem to work very mathematically, is the universe mathematical?

Fundamentally, yes, I think that everything that exists has an underlying mathematical component, and is certainly a result of, and subject to, the foundational laws of physics and mathematics.

So far, i have seen no logical, mathematical or empirical evidence for the existence of a creator. I think it would be wrong to point to maths, physics and pressume it's "GOD".

I agree. As I said, God is not in the physics, or in the maths. You can study those fields all day long for the rest of your life, and never draw any closer to God. But here's the trick. Like the process of thinking about that circle, which has always been there, but you never saw it, when I spent a lot of time thinking about the issues that I raised with myself, regarding those physical laws and mathematical foundations, working through what they were and what they might mean, it turned my mind toward God, and I looked, and there he was.

None of the things that I've talked about are proof of anything, really. They are conclusions, after the fact, that I've come to, not in my quest for God, but in my quest for understanding reality in light of the personal revelation that there is a God, and that my previously held beliefs about his nature were wrong.

reply to post by chocise


So...an ignorant understanding of physics (nobody is claiming that 'nothing' proceeded the Big Bang...hell, we're not even sure if the word 'proceeded' applies until after the event itself) and some argument from authority?

And then you make a bold statement that atheism has no place in a rational mind. That's just stupid and relies on the unfounded assertion that agnosticism and atheism are mutually exclusive concepts.

Agnostic atheism. The lack of belief in deities without the assertion that such beings are impossible.

Originally posted by HarryJoy
reply to post by IAMIAM

 

First of all...Thank you for the rebuke back on page 43. It shook my core to type those words " I'm not saying it's impossible without a god". It is impossible without a God. But I chose the course of the benefit of the doubt.....again. It is time for the day of doubt to end.
As far as me judging goes, it is myself that I have judged. And it is time for that to end as well. But regarding the judgment of this world. I desire it above all else. And any friend of mine would desire it likewise.
They can stop looking. And futily spending their worthless money. He's back in black and he snuck in so good they never saw Him coming.......LOL. It's actually quite hilarious...we'll all have a good laugh about it.
As for the vessels of wrath.....feed them some more. We want them nice and strong. Plump for the picking...so to speak.

I came back to this thread by chance my friend. I meant to click a different link. I am glad I am here and saw this reply. I have another lesson for you that may rock your core some more.

Do you know why people no longer believe in God?

Because WE do not answer each others prayers.

We tell each other when we are hurting to go pray.
We do not heal each other, we do not care.

WE, those who know God, have turned our back on him when we do not care for others.

We have made atheists.

When we are in a position to help we do so if it is profitable to us or if it brings US personal recognition.

How many times do we tell others who thank us for something we have done, "Do not thank me, thank God for making me and gifting me with what you needed to help?"

I am glad my minor rebuke helped, but do not thank me. Thank the father who sent me!

Now go answer some prayers my friend. Never doubt again.



With Love,

Your Brother

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by chocise

 

So...an ignorant understanding of physics (nobody is claiming that 'nothing' proceeded the Big Bang...hell, we're not even sure if the word 'proceeded' applies until after the event itself) and some argument from authority?

And then you make a bold statement that atheism has no place in a rational mind. That's just stupid and relies on the unfounded assertion that agnosticism and atheism are mutually exclusive concepts.

Agnostic atheism. The lack of belief in deities without the assertion that such beings are impossible.

No disrespect man but the big bang is kind of old science by now! If you believe in the multiverse and white holes then it is "easy" to understand that a black hole collapses into itself and creates a white hole(BIG BANG) within the 11 dimensional multiverse, thus setting up a new universe.

Remember all space-time points are interconnected and can be warped? That is what worm-holes and stargates are theoretically based on. Antimatter is the antithesis of matter(negative energy) and can be theoretically used to shrink space-time ahead of you, thus pulling you ahead at faster than light speed.

Who created the multiverse and matter? In my opinion god!

double

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


Emphasis on YOUR opinion.

I'm quite sure the majority of leading physicists and astronomers don't just assume a creator. Not that an appeal to majority stands in anything's favour or truth; i just think scientists take the cautious and honest approach considering what they know and understand on the basis of critical evidence.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by EarthCitizen07

 

Emphasis on YOUR opinion.

I'm quite sure the majority of leading physicists and astronomers don't just assume a creator. Not that an appeal to majority stands in anything's favour or truth; i just think scientists take the cautious and honest approach considering what they know and understand on the basis of critical evidence.

edit on 12/2/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)

Of course everything I say, unless stated otherwise, is always my opinion. But lets put it this way, potential energy can never become kinetic energy unless acted upon by an outside force. God was "the spark" and that is why I consider him the absolute!

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


Maybe there was and is no Spark. And even if there is, does "he" "she" or "it" expect us to be pious?

"Euthyphro dilemma"

The Euthyphro dilemma is found in Plato's dialogue Euthyphro, in which Socrates asks Euthyphro: "Is the pious (τὸ ὅσιον) loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?" (10a)

The dilemma has had a major effect on the philosophical theism of the monotheistic religions, but in a modified form: "Is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God?" This question has presented a problem for theists ever since Plato's original discussion, and it continues to be an object of theological and philosophical discussion today.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by EarthCitizen07

 

Maybe there was and is no Spark. And even if there is, does "he" "she" or "it" expect us to be pious?

"Euthyphro dilemma"

Our friend TD has a thread on this very matter: www.abovetopsecret.com...

My response is in there, but it's essentially, once again, that God is not who we (or Plato) assume him to be, because we personify him. He is not "good", as in "he's a good person", he's "good", as in "he is the quality that we associated with the concept of 'good'."

I did a lousy job of explaining that in TD's thread, I'll not try for the fail in this one, as well

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by chocise

 

So...an ignorant understanding of physics (nobody is claiming that 'nothing' proceeded the Big Bang...hell, we're not even sure if the word 'proceeded' applies until after the event itself) and some argument from authority?

And then you make a bold statement that atheism has no place in a rational mind. That's just stupid and relies on the unfounded assertion that agnosticism and atheism are mutually exclusive concepts.

Agnostic atheism. The lack of belief in deities without the assertion that such beings are impossible.

No disrespect man but the big bang is kind of old science by now! If you believe in the multiverse and white holes then it is "easy" to understand that a black hole collapses into itself and creates a white hole(BIG BANG) within the 11 dimensional multiverse, thus setting up a new universe.

Remember all space-time points are interconnected and can be warped? That is what worm-holes and stargates are theoretically based on. Antimatter is the antithesis of matter(negative energy) and can be theoretically used to shrink space-time ahead of you, thus pulling you ahead at faster than light speed.

Who created the multiverse and matter? In my opinion god!

edit on 12-2-2011 by EarthCitizen07 because: (no reason given)

It's easy to understand sure, but that doesn't make it possible nor does it make true.
A little like God, come to think of it...

reply to post by adjensen


No please do.

My response would be; "The problem of evil" if you are to say "God" is good or "GOD" is what we associate with the concept of "Good" and God is creator, God is the creator of all good AND all evil.

My thoughts are expressed in the "Epicurean Paradox"