• Our software update is now concluded. You will need to reset your password to log in. In order to do this, you will have to click "Log in" in the top right corner and then "Forgot your password?".
  • Forum moderator applications are now open! Click here for details.
  • Welcome to PokéCommunity! Register now and join one of the best fan communities on the 'net to talk Pokémon and more! We are not affiliated with The Pokémon Company or Nintendo.

Perspectives on Atheism

droomph

weeb
4,285
Posts
12
Years
I don't know about other godless folk, but the reason I don't believe in a god is that I can't see him, and I'm not about to push myself to find him. If he may exist but I can't understand nor perceive him, then I don't see much reason for him to be relevant, so whether he exists or not isn't as important as the fact that he isn't affecting my life.

There are many things that I cannot explain in my life. But I don't attribute them to god, just like I don't attribute my ex-tormentor to having a mental disorder (even though I would like to and it would make my life have slightly more sense). Some things are incomprehensible but I choose to let them stand and it doesn't bother me too much.

Some of you out here are pretty godless in my books, but you haven't really given yourself a title. Would you identify with deism? It's a belief in god rooted in reason, with a rejection of religious authority and revelation and even prayer. Some of the Founding Fathers held that belief back in the day - but it's largely evolved to atheism now. But I see it on a continuum between Christianity and atheism (it evolved from Christianity), which makes sense to me because I perceive a lot of grey area before god! and no god.

Personally, I've read too much psychology and biochemistry to believe in a soul. You might say that it takes a leap of faith to "believe" that your consciousness = the sum of all your mental activity. I love explaining this bit. While of course I'm taking a leap of faith, that faith involves acknowledging the possibility that your consciousness/soul is an illusion. So to me it's even more suspicious of my spirituality/soul and that makes me happy because I like to give an understanding of the soul as hard a time as possible. It's not that I don't believe in a soul, it's that I don't believe that the soul can be understood, because everything you think occurs in the framework of your consciousness which you cannot perceive independently of itself. Everything you perceive, to me, is an illusion that is processed through the illusion of the mind. So to me the mind is can only be understood subjectively - which frees it from the grasp of any authority, even religion. It's a bit nihilist, but I like it because I'm not cutting myself some slack. I think my personal philosophy involves making as little assumptions as possible, but postmodernism can tell me a thing or two about that and I may be getting ahead of myself now.

As an atheist I do have faith however. I keep faith in people and humanity as well as human nature - because that is predictable enough/explains enough in the world for me. I used to be unable to explain a godless morality, but through my study of philosophy at school, I think I'm starting to understand how morality can occur without a god authority. So people relatively to very godless don't feel like they're missing something because meaning in life, spirituality, and faith occurs in other ways.

I may be using the word "faith" incorrectly, or misunderstanding my "godless faith" as a parallel to faith in religion. What does faith mean in a religious context? Once in understand that I might be able to say something more meaningful about my own "faith". XD
That's what I've been saying. You haven't seen a God, and I'm not about to describe to you what a God is, because you need to see it like you see a color.
No, but then, neither do I spend time contemplating things that I can't prove, especially since proving a negative is impossible. It's not possible to prove that a god does not exist, but it conceivably could be possible to prove that a god does exist. This is why I generally laugh when people tell me to prove that god does not exists. I can't do that any more than I can prove that unicorns don't exist, or that elves don't exist, or that a money tree doesn't exist.
Then I laugh at you, because I can't do any more to prove what's true to me.

That's what faith is - I have hope for the future. I want there to be a unicorn. I want there to be a money tree. Those things aren't true, but they might be, and I imagine the day they come. There has to be something, why not hope for the future? That's what makes us happy. You don't believe me? Remember when you got to order something you've always wanted to come to you? Were you more happy after it came, or the days leading up to the day you got it? To get happiness is to believe that something is coming. I'm sorry for being happy, I'll try to be miserable like I was, before I found something to make me happy.

You have no right to infringe on my happiness, and I have no right to infringe on your happiness. Therefore, leave me alone, and I'll leave you alone.

You are missing out on such a truth, but I don't blame you for that. It's rather the pride and arrogance in how you present yourself that I blame you.

You and I do not know everything, and you know that as well as I do. Therefore it is impossible to prove objectively that your existence is any more true than my delusions.
You have to admit, though, that your understanding of what "God" is is not a universal one. Others may in fact understand "God" to be an entity, especially those who claim to interpret God's will to condemn others for who they are, be they black, gay, or whatever.

You offer one opinion of what "God" is. It is, by no means, a universally shared opinion by religious people.
Then those people are wrong. Those people are the people that I don't like either, but I want you all to know that despising religious people is unfair to the rest of us who don't dominate others.

Please read these passages, and see:

Romans 1 said:
16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes: first to the Jew, then to the Gentile. 17 For in the gospel the righteousness of God is revealed—a righteousness that is by faith from first to last,[e] just as it is written: "The righteous will live by faith."
The foundation of any "righteous" believer.
Romans 1 said:
28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done.
A common misunderstanding - we do not, can not, and should not hate them, but they are that way.
Romans 1 said:
32 Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.
However, this doesn't mean we want you dead. In fact, we want you alive and well and with us.
Romans 2 said:
1 You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. 2 Now we know that God's judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. 3 So when you, a mere human being, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God's judgment? 4 Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, forbearance and patience, not realizing that God's kindness is intended to lead you to repentance?
Use this verse against those who hurt you "in the name of God" (eg gay bash, tell you that you're going to hell).
Romans 2 said:
6 God "will repay each person according to what they have done."[a] 7 To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life.
This applies to every human being, Christian or atheist, Buddhist, Hindu, or in fact, any religion.
Romans 2 said:
8 But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger.
This also applies to every human being, Christian or atheist, Buddhist, Hindu, or in fact, any religion.
Romans 2 said:
9 There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile;
Romans 2 said:
10 but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile.
"The Jews have been chosen; but you can get it like they do if you want."
Romans 2 said:
11 For God does not show favoritism.
God doesn't care who you are, he just wants you to be nice.
Romans 14 said:
The Weak and the Strong

14 Accept the one whose faith is weak, without quarreling over disputable matters. 2 One person's faith allows them to eat anything, but another, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3 The one who eats everything must not treat with contempt the one who does not, and the one who does not eat everything must not judge the one who does, for God has accepted them. 4 Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To their own master, servants stand or fall. And they will stand, for the Lord is able to make them stand.

5 One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind. 6 Whoever regards one day as special does so to the Lord. Whoever eats meat does so to the Lord, for they give thanks to God; and whoever abstains does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. 7 For none of us lives for ourselves alone, and none of us dies for ourselves alone. 8 If we live, we live for the Lord; and if we die, we die for the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord. 9 For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living.

10 You, then, why do you judge your brother or sister[a]? Or why do you treat them with contempt? For we will all stand before God's judgment seat. 11 It is written:

"'As surely as I live,' says the Lord,
'every knee will bow before me;
every tongue will acknowledge God.'"
12 So then, each of us will give an account of ourselves to God.

13 Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in the way of a brother or sister. 14 I am convinced, being fully persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for that person it is unclean. 15 If your brother or sister is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy someone for whom Christ died. 16 Therefore do not let what you know is good be spoken of as evil. 17 For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, 18 because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and receives human approval.

19 Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification. 20 Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a person to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. 21 It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother or sister to fall.

22 So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who does not condemn himself by what he approves. 23 But whoever has doubts is condemned if they eat, because their eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin.
What I do not know is much greater than me - I do not know many things. I therefore fear the unknown, but I am at the same time curious. I search into the unknown, and hope.

Faith is hope. Faith has nothing to do with anything objective. If you want to know why we believe in these delusions, it is because we have hope. We can't force you to have hope, because that would be against your will, and that would be against our will. Therefore, believe whatever you want - however, you should know to have faith in the inevitable, the unknown that will soon reveal itself.

Even science has the same approach; have faith in the unknown, and find out what's there.

I don't know why you guys hate all of us so much automatically, especially when we aren't supposed to even be rude to you. What did I ever do to you? What did we cause that you didn't cause back to us?

There are rude people in every group - every race and ethnicity has its fair share of crude and uncivilized people; every faith has its extremists that annoy all of us.

For Christians, it is the ones who control. Read the passages from Romans - Paul clearly tells us that being who you are is the wrong way to do things, and you will be judged as much as the one you judged. You ruin everything for us who have no reason to judge, and I feel bad for myself that I have to be in the same group as you.

For atheists, it's people like you. You condemn all of us, even when you have the same faults in your logic as we do. You think you know everything just by the principle on which you live, yet you clearly do not. If I asked you what exactly your genome was, would you be able to answer immediately? The reasonability of the question is not relevant - the truth is, you know as much as we dumb people who believe in imaginary beings do. You are just as illiterate in the Truth as me, you know no more than anyone else. Take that in mind, and set out on your journey of conversion.

Though if you were to ask these people, they would probably self-identify as being Christian, or Muslim, or Jewish. So even if most would not self-identify as being a Catholic, or Protestant, or Baptist let's say, they would still consider themselves Christians, just Christians not belonging to any particular denomination.
Names aren't important compared to what you believe in.
 
Last edited:
5,983
Posts
15
Years
Okay we're not going to go into scripture here. This was never the intention, explicit or implicit, that I had when I outlined the first post. This is about the perception of atheism vis a vis religion, not to prove one vs. the other. We're here to solve misunderstandings, not to preach. I don't want you to delete your post, but a decent chunk of the god! to no god spectrum rejects any form of religious authority, and that includes the bible.

Those of us who don't abide by the book, even if we believe in god, would not appreciate you quoting passages out of it. It applies more to you than us and we don't take it as a cause for anything. It doesn't mean that you /can't/ argue from scripture, just that there are more relevant ways of communicating your message to us who do not accept/understand it. And a major part of your message is how you present it to us. I want to put it nicely - there's no way you can convince anybody through scripture without explaining first why somebody should be convinced through scripture.

And you make plenty of claims about how everybody has the same illiteracy to truth - I will address that in due time.

And while I don't know my genome, if I had enough money/time/my own lab I could probably get it to you in a 1.4 mb long text file. I made up the number, but we can count the AGCT's in DNA. It wouldn't make any sense to you, and it wouldn't make any sense to me either - so I'd like to have a sample of your DNA so we can compare them side by side. And then we can take a sample of everybody here on PC, and compare those side by side. I have a few friends in computer science who could probably write us a program that shows the relative abundance of certain sequences.

And I can tell you the expression of my genome as a phenotype. I have brown eyes and black hair. I am 5'8" - although my diet and lack of exercise may have made me shorter than my genetic potential. I have a congenital heart condition that was decided by my genome. I can tell so much about myself just from observation - and there is so much more that we don't know. We know where to find it, we know generally how to understand it - it just takes time and effort to understand every specific thing. I could also tell you that I'm probably not immune to HIV because I'm not North European. Even things like that can be described in your genome.

I'm afraid I may have to talk about my own atheism as a response to challenge to our ideas.

I was going through the verses to see what I disagree with, and comment on them individually. I'd much rather go with a summary, seeing that is more useful and easier to understand.

Firstly, the word of God as expressed in scripture is not the liberal, treat everybody with equal dignity, essentially hippy that we'd all like Him to be. Apparently atheist and godless types have been "given over" to a "depraved mind". I am not even going to argue with this, it speaks for itself. God also selects the Jews as his chosen people, and they get the closed beta of salvation. Why. In this Western culture of liberalism, where all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights, such language would be unacceptable and racist.

Secondly, do not assume that you are nice and respectful because you are reading from authority and your religious doctrines. If anything, it tells us that you think only in the framework that you are taught, and know only "respect" from a narrow perspective - which isn't respect at all.

A common misunderstanding - we do not, can not, and should not hate them, but they are that way.

It doesn't matter what you want. I don't like this way of thinking, because it's analogous to "oh hey we shouldn't hate gay people, but they are that way" ... like it's a good thing? Your language is paternalistic, you are talking down to us people who are "missing" something. Many of us, religious or not, do not care what other people, nor God, want for us without thinking about it critically. However you exhort us to read these passages and then what - accept it as the word of God or to consider it rationally as we see fit? True respect requires an acceptance of other perspectives, even entire frameworks in which deference to holy scripture is irrelevant.

So let's begin that respect by comparing side by side some parallels in our thought systems so we can find some common ground. Because right now all we're doing is posting irrelevant cluster***ks that do not forward our understanding in any way. Boom - step 1. Religious or not, all of us desire to forward our understanding - there's some common ground. This is why we believe what we believe in, or rather do what we do, as we haven't established what faith is yet. Hence my next question: what is faith to you?
 
Last edited:
900
Posts
13
Years
  • Age 51
  • Seen Jul 22, 2016
That's what I've been saying. You haven't seen a God, and I'm not about to describe to you what a God is, because you need to see it like you see a color.Then I laugh at you, because I can't do any more to prove what's true to me.

I'm colour blind. :P

You are missing out on such a truth, but I don't blame you for that. It's rather the pride and arrogance in how you present yourself that I blame you.

So many of the truths that we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view (okay, I couldn't resist!). Truth is subjective. It is not universal. My truth may not be your truth, but that does not make one more valid than the other. Where I have to object, however, is when one person, or a group of people, attempt to force their truths on others. That crosses a line with me that should never be crossed. But of course, some just can't resist the temptation.

Please read these passages, and see:

No thanks. All the verses you cite are taken out of context. They cannot be read properly without being in context, or in other words, without being read as part of the larger story. It's no different than someone pulling a quote from someone's speech and using that quote to prove a point. Because the quote is pulled out of context, the text cannot be read as it was meant to.

For atheists, it's people like you. You condemn all of us, even when you have the same faults in your logic as we do.

Please refrain from painting people with such a broad brush. I condemn no one, and I haven't heard anyone on here even come close to condemning you. I just happen to disagree with your point of view. That is not condemnation. That is discussion.
 

Snowdrop

Back and ready to babble!
630
Posts
11
Years
I'd better pop some popcorn, this is gettin' good. And I'll just pop in here real quick, which I had been meaning to a while back but forgot to...

Let's see, my views on atheism... well, I'm an atheist myself but atheism in general kind of annoyed me a little bit. Even though I agreed with all their points, they always seemed so cocky and arrogant in the way they spoke and carried themselves. I used to just think, "Man, calm down, it's just the Internet... no need to get vicious." That applies to both sides though. Now I'm starting to see why they get so passionate about it. I keep it contained, and I never debate or argue. But I see where they're coming from now.
 

Echidna

i don't care what's in your hair
2,077
Posts
13
Years
Ok wow so much to say, so little time. Not sleeping tonight :/
But ok yay, this is developing into something quite enjoyable (:
[clears throat]

The origins of the universe can be attributed to one of two theories. These theories are facial, we cannot delve into the origins of these origins simply because we can't comprehend them. In other words, we can only see the faces of these theories and not what goes on behind them, I'll explain why in a bit. The two theories are:
  • Cosmic Coincidence
  • Creator/God
Logically speaking, those are the only two possible explanations. Either someone created matter/existence, or something happened to create it. There are a few ways I can think of to put this reasoning into an argument towards whether God exists or not.
  • If something happened to created matter, something that did not involve a God, it had to have followed the existence of something else. Matter came from light, according to the Big Bang theory, so where did the light come from? You could go on with this argument forever, and the only way to stop is to reach, at some point, an entity responsible for all of creation.
    The reason behind this is the classic paradox or creator vs creation. What a creator creates does not apply to them because before they created it, it did not exist. On the other hand, they created it, so it should apply to everything, but it does not apply to them.
    More to that, if we deny the existence of a God, then I ask you this: What was there before there was everything? You could say nothingness but you'd be wrong, because nothingness is a concept that can only exist or be used if there is something somewhere else, because nothingness is the absence of something.
    So basically, there is no way to attribute our incapability to comprehend the origins of this world without somehow involving a God. Our knowledge is limited and at the scale of the universe, our logic may be flawed.
  • A coincidence is attributed to randomness, to chaos. When something happens for no reason without someone behind a cause, then it is said to be random. If our world was created by randomness, then how come the universe is so balanced? How could the resources we need for survival be part of the few renewable resources on Earth? How can everything our species needs to live be at the reach of our fingertips on one planet in a universe bigger than imagination? How did coincidence, randomness, work towards the creation of a living, breathing and thinking species such as humanity? Or life for that matter? It couldn't have. Coincidence couldn't possibly have created the level of systematic balance in our world, and this level of perfection in creation can only be, once again, attributed to a God.

I could go on to employ even your own judgement:
  • Look at the nearest wall to you. Now think, that the small grain you see in that wall is created of millions of atoms, atoms the are composed of particles, particles that are held together by a nuclear binding force that, had it been even the slightest bit less or more, that wall would not be solid, wouldn't be stable. Think of the microscopic intangible and unthinkable forces that have preserved the composition of matter and stopped it from going back to stray random photons.

    That right there is the mark of someone's handiwork.

2cents anyways because I gotta sleep :/
 

SaniOKh

Too old for this stuff
592
Posts
17
Years
The following statement is me trying to calm things down, but I'm not sure if I'll succeed, this is developing in quite a (puts on glasses) holy war (yeeeeaaaaaaah!) .

This part will be mostly retelling and expanding on another statement by Richard Dawkins (who, by the way is not an angry vitriolic mad man, unlike what christians make him out to be) because here goes another part where I completely agree with him: I think the best way for believers to understand us atheists, non-believers, is to realize that from certain angles they are non-believers themselves. Let me elaborate: you adhere to Christianity, Islam, Judaism, or any other faith of your choosing, but that's only one religion. You don't believe in Thor, you don't believe in Zeus, you don't believe in Osiris, you don't believe in Hindu gods, if you have read ancient mythologies, you obviously did not see them like sacred texts, you saw them as simple literature. In this way we completely agree, it's only that (quote by Richard Dawkins) "some of us go one god further".
 

Ivysaur

Grass dinosaur extraordinaire
21,082
Posts
17
Years
@Pedro: But, of course, we go back to point a: how was god created? Did he appear out of nowhere? Why should a god be exempt from the logic that "everything has a cause"? Was god always there? I personally don't need a god to wonder how the universe came into being because I can ask the same exact questions about the universe itself (how was it created? was it always there? did it appear out of nowhere? etc.), and adding a god only adds another layer of the same exact uncertainty. Therefore, I don't think it answers any questions about the origin of life- it just raises the same exact ones but one step ahead.

And second, I don't got for the "design" theory as laws of physics explain very nicely how and why all particles tend to merge together. And, of course, they are going to merge within the realm of possibility. A god didn't design central Africa, and yet there are hundreds of species living there, all adapted to the conditions of that zone. If it rained a bit more often there, those animals couldn't have survived in the same way they have! But that's because it rains X times a year in that zone, so the animals need to work on the existing framework. In other words, if there was less binding force, another sort of atoms would have been developed, and possibly another different universe that followed the new laws. We can't know, because we are looking at a fait accompli- things could have gone a billion other ways instead, but they went this one. The probability of the universe ending up the way we know it might be of one between several trillions, but it went THIS particular way- and that's what we have to live with.

Droomph said:
That's what faith is - I have hope for the future. I want there to be a unicorn. I want there to be a money tree. Those things aren't true, but they might be, and I imagine the day they come. There has to be something, why not hope for the future? That's what makes us happy. You don't believe me? Remember when you got to order something you've always wanted to come to you? Were you more happy after it came, or the days leading up to the day you got it? To get happiness is to believe that something is coming. I'm sorry for being happy, I'll try to be miserable like I was, before I found something to make me happy.

I have hope for the future- but for the future I know I will live. I'm immensely happy with my life. I live every second to its fullest because I know one day I'll die and I won't get to enjoy anything else anymore as I'll disappear from existence. That's why I want to enjoy everything, so I can go and say "Well, it was worth it, wasn't it? 10/10 would live again".

But I don't think happiness is "expecing something to come". I don't think that hoping that a tree will sprout spaghetti one day will give me happiness as I know that is impossible. No, I try to fight for what I can get, for what I know is possible, as immensely hard as it may sound- who could have guessed I'd end up being a staff admin when I joined? Who thought I would have got the great job I got? Well, I knew those things were possible and I fought for them and I got them. And I enjoy having them. Waiting for a game coming up on the mail doesn't give me happiness, playing one I already have does. So waiting for an "afterlife" doesn't give me happiness- enjoying the life I do have does.
 
Last edited:

Echidna

i don't care what's in your hair
2,077
Posts
13
Years
@Pedro: But, of course, we go back to point a: how was god created? Did he appear out of nowhere? Why should a god be exempt from the logic that "everything has a cause"? Was god always there? I personally don't need a god to wonder how the universe came into being because I can ask the same exact questions about the universe itself (how was it created? was it always there? did it appear out of nowhere? etc.), and adding a god only adds another layer of the same exact uncertainty. Therefore, I don't think it answers any questions about the origin of life- it just raises the same exact ones but one step ahead.
Yes but the two are not similar. Here's how I see things:
If matter creates matter, the second level of creation must abide by the rules of the first. It's physics. You put two solutions together and they produce a third, the third abides by the same physical standards as the originals (mass, gravity, density... etc. And I don't mean it'll have the same density, I mean it'll exist within the standard of density, it'll have a density), simply because matter does not have a mind of its own and thus cannot create something entirely new that does not abide by the original's rules. If we want to attribute our world to anything other than God, we're gonna have to assume that there was a chain reaction of sorts, because something cannot come out of nothing. One thing led to another which led to another which led to another and so on and so forth.
If we try to find the origin, we can't, because the origin of something that does not have a mind has to abide by the rules of the creation in the preceding chain. So the origin of our world would follow the same physical standards and base-points as our own. In essence, we'd have to convince ourselves that somehow, something came out of nothing, at one point in time.

However, a God would have a mind. A God would have the ability to create something new. You create a world inside a video game, that world might not have gravity or not even abide by our laws of physics. You are capable of creating something completely new.
In the same manner of thought, apply this to God. What God creates does not apply to him. God created a world where everything needs a cause, a beginning. How are we to assume that God needs a beginning?
This could be extremely confusing, and it's supposed to be. When something exists outside our horizon of thought, beyond what we can comprehend, we're bound to be skeptical, confused... etc.

But the only way to explain our incapability to comprehend the origin of the world is by attributing it to an entity capable of thought and creation.
And second, I don't got for the "design" theory as laws of physics explain very nicely how and why all particles tend to merge together. And, of course, they are going to merge within the realm of possibility. A god didn't design central Africa, and yet there are hundreds of species living there, all adapted to the conditions of that zone. If it rained a bit more often tehre, those animals couldn't have survived in the same way they have! But that's because it rains X times a year in that zone, so the animals need to work on the existing framework. In other words, if there was less binding force, another sort of atoms would have been developed. We can't know, because we are looking at a fait accompli- things could have gone a billion other ways instead, but they went this one. The probability of the universe ending up the way we know it might be of one between several trillions, but it went THIS particular way- and that's what we have to live with.
So we're to assume that not only was their some sort of cosmic coincidence that led to the creation of a universe, but also that it somehow managed to turn up in the one out of a trillion ways that would allow stability?
Besides, the nuclear binding energy between nucleons is extremely delicate. If it were the tiniest bit stronger, we'd probably have only half of our periodic table because during the expansion of the universe, it would have been significantly harder for new materials to come into existence.
And if it were even the tiniest bit weaker, there would be no periodic table at all.
 
Last edited:
900
Posts
13
Years
  • Age 51
  • Seen Jul 22, 2016
If something happened to created matter, something that did not involve a God, it had to have followed the existence of something else. Matter came from light, according to the Big Bang theory, so where did the light come from? You could go on with this argument forever, and the only way to stop is to reach, at some point, an entity responsible for all of creation.

The reason behind this is the classic paradox or creator vs creation. What a creator creates does not apply to them because before they created it, it did not exist. On the other hand, they created it, so it should apply to everything, but it does not apply to them.
More to that, if we deny the existence of a God, then I ask you this: What was there before there was everything? You could say nothingness but you'd be wrong, because nothingness is a concept that can only exist or be used if there is something somewhere else, because nothingness is the absence of something.

So basically, there is no way to attribute our incapability to comprehend the origins of this world without somehow involving a God. Our knowledge is limited and at the scale of the universe, our logic may be flawed.

I suggest you read "A Universe from Nothing: Why There is Something Rather than Nothing" by physicist Lawrence M. Krauss. It's a fascinating read and refutes your assertions quite conclusively.

Or better yet, watch this video:

SOMETHING FROM NOTHING ? [OFFICIAL] Richard Dawkins & Lawrence Krauss
 

Ivysaur

Grass dinosaur extraordinaire
21,082
Posts
17
Years
Yes but the two are not similar. Here's how I see things:
If matter creates matter, the second level of creation must abide by the rules of the first. It's physics. You put two solutions together and they produce a third, the third abides by the same physical standards as the originals (mass, gravity, density... etc. And I don't mean it'll have the same density, I mean it'll exist within the standard of density, it'll have a density), simply because matter does not have a mind of its own and thus cannot create something entirely new that does not abide by the original's rules. If we want to attribute our world to anything other than God, we're gonna have to assume that there was a chain reaction of sorts, because something cannot come out of nothing. One thing led to another which led to another which led to another and so on and so forth.
If we try to find the origin, we can't, because the origin of something that does not have a mind has to abide by the rules of the creation in the preceding chain. So the origin of our world would follow the same physical standards and base-points as our own. In essence, we'd have to convince ourselves that somehow, something came out of nothing, at one point in time.

However, a God would have a mind. A God would have the ability to create something new. You create a world inside a video game, that world might not have gravity or not even abide by our laws of physics. You are capable of creating something completely new.
In the same manner of thought, apply this to God. What God creates does not apply to him. God created a world where everything needs a cause, a beginning. How are we to assume that God needs a beginning?
This could be extremely confusing, and it's supposed to be. When something exists outside our horizon of thought, beyond what we can comprehend, we're bound to be skeptical, confused... etc.

But the only way to explain our incapability to comprehend the origin of the world is by attributing it to an entity capable of thought and creation.

Except that doesn't really explain anything- or rather, it raises the questions of who is that god, how did it come into play, and why he doesn't have to abide by the same laws as everything else. I myself would rather accept my ignorance about how the existing universe whose existence we are 100% sure of works, rather than trying to find an imperfect explanation that raises a new set of unanswerable questions. Furthermore, we can continue investigating the universe, but we can't investigate an entity whose existence we can just imagine or theorize about. I personally am not comfortable with such an explanation.

So we're to assume that not only was their some sort of cosmic coincidence that led to the creation of a universe, but also that it somehow managed to turn up in the one out of a trillion ways that would allow stability?
Besides, the nuclear binding energy between nucleons is extremely delicate. If it were the tiniest bit stronger, we'd probably have only half of our periodic table because during the expansion of the universe, it would have been significantly harder for new materials to come into existence.
And if it were even the tiniest bit weaker, there would be no periodic table at all.

Exactly. We are to assume that such a cosmic coincidence happened because it did happen. When you find a dice lying on the "six" face, you can wonder why it didn't fall on the 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 faces, or you can acknowledge it did fall on the 6 and start working from there.

In other words, if any of the other options had happened, we wouldn't be here and therefore we wouldn't be asking these questions. But, over a possibly infinite amount of universes, every single chance is expected to happen. We are just in one in which that cosmic coincidence did happen, the nuclear binding energy works this particular way, and we are writing phylosophical rambles on a keyboard. If any of the other options had happened, we wouldn't exist, and "we", whatever we are, would be waiting in nowhereland until the right cosmic coincidence allowed us to exist.
 
10,769
Posts
14
Years
This "the universe is too complex to be random" idea never sat well with me because we know that random, incredibly unlikely events do happen and the more time, the more changes you give it the more likely they are to happen. I feel like what I know of science and mathematics (which admittedly isn't a lot, or at least isn't as deep as it is broad) explains to me pretty easily why there are complex things like human beings: simple structures like electrons and protons exist, after a long time they gather together through random bumping around the universe, create atoms, which do the same thing, etc. etc. after enough time random change gives you more and more complex things. I think the fact that the universe has existed for billions of years is a long enough time for all kinds of unlikely things to occur.
 

droomph

weeb
4,285
Posts
12
Years
I'm colour blind. :P
Then you'll understand my logic perfectly.
So many of the truths that we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view (okay, I couldn't resist!). Truth is subjective. It is not universal. My truth may not be your truth, but that does not make one more valid than the other. Where I have to object, however, is when one person, or a group of people, attempt to force their truths on others. That crosses a line with me that should never be crossed. But of course, some just can't resist the temptation.
Then I won't force it upon you. That's pretty much what I've been saying.
No thanks. All the verses you cite are taken out of context. They cannot be read properly without being in context, or in other words, without being read as part of the larger story. It's no different than someone pulling a quote from someone's speech and using that quote to prove a point. Because the quote is pulled out of context, the text cannot be read as it was meant to.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+1&version=NIV go wild.
Please refrain from painting people with such a broad brush. I condemn no one, and I haven't heard anyone on here even come close to condemning you. I just happen to disagree with your point of view. That is not condemnation. That is discussion.
I'm not referring to you, rather to those I addressed. There are people (Youtube!) that do that constantly, but I think you're a cool guy, I was referring to those people personally.

Except that doesn't really explain anything- or rather, it raises the questions of who is that god, how did it come into play, and why he doesn't have to abide by the same laws as everything else. I myself would rather accept my ignorance about how the existing universe whose existence we are 100% sure of works, rather than trying to find an imperfect explanation that raises a new set of unanswerable questions. Furthermore, we can continue investigating the universe, but we can't investigate an entity whose existence we can just imagine or theorize about. I personally am not comfortable with such an explanation.



Exactly. We are to assume that such a cosmic coincidence happened because it did happen. When you find a dice lying on the "six" face, you can wonder why it didn't fall on the 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 faces, or you can acknowledge it did fall on the 6 and start working from there.

In other words, if any of the other options had happened, we wouldn't be here and therefore we wouldn't be asking these questions. But, over a possibly infinite amount of universes, every single chance is expected to happen. We are just in one in which that cosmic coincidence did happen, the nuclear binding energy works this particular way, and we are writing phylosophical rambles on a keyboard. If any of the other options had happened, we wouldn't exist, and "we", whatever we are, would be waiting in nowhereland until the right cosmic coincidence allowed us to exist.
God is the unknown. We were created by the unknown.

People can't accept that God is the unknown, so they personify him. That's what's confusing to many people. We're not talking to an imaginary person, we're talking to everything that we haven't found out about. We are talking to the 1,2,3,4,5 faces, not the person who rolled them.
 
Last edited:
900
Posts
13
Years
  • Age 51
  • Seen Jul 22, 2016

Interesting. The bible version you're referring to is the New International Version (NIV). But it is just one of about 100 different versions out there. Each one of them translating the original texts differently. How is any one to know for certain that this particular version is the correct one, and not another?

I know I'm splitting hairs here, but you have to agree, it does create a problem. Because if the original texts are interpreted so many different ways, how can any one be certain that what they are reading is truly an accurate translation of the original texts. And then there are so many different people who further try to interpret the interpreted bible. It's like a story that travels from mouth to mouth and in the end resembles nothing like the original story by the time it cycles back to the source. I could tell you that Jane leapt over the fallen log, and that single sentence, after being told to 100 different people could end up saying instead: Jane tripped on the root.

God is the unknown. We were created by the unknown.

Funny, I thought my parents created me, and their parents created them, and so on and so on...
 

droomph

weeb
4,285
Posts
12
Years
Interesting. The bible version you're referring to is the New International Version (NIV). But it is just one of about 100 different versions out there. Each one of them translating the original texts differently. How is any one to know for certain that this particular version is the correct one, and not another?

I know I'm splitting hairs here, but you have to agree, it does create a problem. Because if the original texts are interpreted so many different ways, how can any one be certain that what they are reading is truly an accurate translation of the original texts. And then there are so many different people who further try to interpret the interpreted bible. It's like a story that travels from mouth to mouth and in the end resembles nothing like the original story by the time it cycles back to the source. I could tell you that Jane leapt over the fallen log, and that single sentence, after being told to 100 different people could end up saying instead: Jane tripped on the root.
http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/Greek_Index.htm you know, these things are so readily available



Funny, I thought my parents created me, and their parents created them, and so on and so on...
Then who created the person that created all of us? By that, I mean the atoms, and the quarks that make up the molecules that make up life. And obviously something had to create the Big Bang, right? Then who is that? That is God. Whatever that thing that created us is, that is God. It could be human, it could be a giant blue mass of worms, it could be energy from another dimension and existence, or something that is incomprehensible to us. But nonetheless, that is God.
 
5,983
Posts
15
Years
You're usually cool droomph, but I guess you're too cool to respond to my posts on a thread I started myself.

I guess it's much easier to quote endlessly from scripture by assuming that the Bible holds the same authority in every individual you encounter. Which is totally not imposing a moral norm on them, totally respectful just like God intended.

Passive-aggressiveness aside, I would appreciate that you consider the bolded text in my previous post before you continue like that opinion doesn't exist. You see, one thing I disagree with religion is how authoritative it is. Thus a person can claim he's being respectful and open, because after all, isn't that what the religion commands you to do? So being respectful and tolerant of other people's idea becomes conflated with abiding with religious doctrine - which is an illogical step to take. When you're tolerant of other people's ideas, you're usually able to identify the differences between their frames of reference and from then on synthesize some common ground. Or at least be able to admit there is no common ground. But that can only occur after you understand both perspectives - and currently you're still arguing from scripture. Are you not aware that you yourself could also be mistaken by your own frame of reference? I am asking you to take a step back and consider why you say the things you do, without plodding on without thinking about it critically. It's not even an "atheist" thing to do. Many ministers and religious figures undertake an education involving theology, which is the rational and systematic study of God and religious truths.

Then who created the person that created all of us? By that, I mean the atoms, and the quarks that make up the molecules that make up life. And obviously something had to create the Big Bang, right? Then who is that? That is God. Whatever that thing that created us is, that is God. It could be human, it could be a giant blue mass of worms, it could be energy from another dimension and existence, or something that is incomprehensible to us. But nonetheless, that is God.

Let's not go into creation theory when you haven't explained the root of your faith - your rationale, if you will. But like many of us have expressed, what makes God the ultimate creator - what made God himself? And if you're saying God is the creator of our universe, why would he give us religion and salvation? Why couldn't he have stepped back and enjoy his handiwork never to intervene with it again, or simply disappeared?
 

droomph

weeb
4,285
Posts
12
Years
You're usually cool droomph, but I guess you're too cool to respond to my posts on a thread I started myself.

I guess it's much easier to quote endlessly from scripture by assuming that the Bible holds the same authority in every individual you encounter. Which is totally not imposing a moral norm on them, totally respectful just like God intended.

Passive-aggressiveness aside, I would appreciate that you consider the bolded text in my previous post before you continue like that opinion doesn't exist. You see, one thing I disagree with religion is how authoritative it is. Thus a person can claim he's being respectful and open, because after all, isn't that what the religion commands you to do? So being respectful and tolerant of other people's idea becomes conflated with abiding with religious doctrine - which is an illogical step to take. When you're tolerant of other people's ideas, you're usually able to identify the differences between their frames of reference and from then on synthesize some common ground. Or at least be able to admit there is no common ground. But that can only occur after you understand both perspectives - and currently you're still arguing from scripture. Are you not aware that you yourself could also be mistaken by your own frame of reference? I am asking you to take a step back and consider why you say the things you do, without plodding on without thinking about it critically. It's not even an "atheist" thing to do. Many ministers and religious figures undertake an education involving theology, which is the rational and systematic study of God and religious truths.
Do you not realize that I was trying to support your point, that the Bible tells the ones that you don't like to respect people like you?
Let's not go into creation theory when you haven't explained the root of your faith - your rationale, if you will. But like many of us have expressed, what makes God the ultimate creator - what made God himself? And if you're saying God is the creator of our universe, why would he give us religion and salvation? Why couldn't he have stepped back and enjoy his handiwork never to intervene with it again, or simply disappeared?
That's what I've been trying to say. Nobody can know who and why, but it is. If you search long enough, you'll find it.
 
5,983
Posts
15
Years
As an atheist my perspective doesn't come from religious texts, so even if you're agreeing with me, I'd rather you disagree with me and come from a rational framework. Reverence to religious texts is something we don't share, but rational arguments are. I've wanted to hear why religious authority is something you take seriously, because you take it seriously.

That's what I've been trying to say. Nobody can know who and why, but it is. If you search long enough, you'll find it.

Good, we have two clearly outlined perspectives. Let's put creation on pause right now and get our mutual understanding of where we come from in order.
 

droomph

weeb
4,285
Posts
12
Years
I understand somewhat where atheism com from, because I do understand that I do not observe that there is a God. Atheists simply do not have a feeling, and I can't blame you for not feeling it. But once you do - wether it be this second or when you die, you will understand everything that I do, which, by the way, is not much at all.

But what I am saying with giving you such text is simply letting you know that your accusations are wrong - that all Christians are supposed to be as you find people to be ideal - tolerant. I am simply showing that even the highest source of knowledge from my point of view agrees without any reservation that you are completely right, and with the added bonus that if you keep in mind those verses, you can bring light to the very people you dislike, the ones that use God for their own purposes, the ones that treat him like a pet, the ones that hurt the cause.

And as to why I find religious authority important, I don't. I find the Bible to be an automatic source where I get my morality, though I don't revere it like others revere the American flag, and such. It is more of a self-help book, as no word can describe whatever I'm feeling, etc.

There is only one place where I can revere, and that is the unknown. Because it's unpredictable (the Bible is just words on a text medium, but the meaning - that's unpredictable), everyone should revere such power. But I don't mind those that don't - it would simply be too unreasonable, like asking a first grader to solve a calculus problem.

None of this is to insult you, if it seems so - if anything, you may be stronger than me, to know what I fear. But that is not to say you're stronger, either - I may see more than you do, and thus fear it more than you. But the truth is, from a thousand miles away, two inches seems like nothing, doesn't it? Therefore whatever strengths you or I have above the other doesn't really matter in the face of everything else in the world. We are all the same, and we should be discussing this as we have been.

So. Why did he invent religion? He didn't. He simply is there, and the idea that he's there has frightened so many people into treating him like a god. And reasonably, they are afraid of him, and they use the scary idea of the unknown to trick others. But that dioesn't mean it's always used for bad things - it's used to comfort people, that they don't know everything.

So, I can't describe this to you any better. Any further "rational" explanation would simply boil down to me analyzing literature, and you telling me how I haven't whatever, etc. So if you skimmed, I understand. But just remember - all of theology, all of religion - it's just a feeling. It's a feeling, sure, but a feeling so big that there's no denying it can only be a feeling. It's a feeling that turns people into bumbling idiots when they try to explain it, because there is no way to explain it. That's my side.
 
5,983
Posts
15
Years
That sounds pretty darn good to me. Your thinking is really interesting - it's radical in that you view yourself separate from organized religion, but you still keep faith in the Bible.

Another question, and this is by no means directed only to you droomph: Why are religious texts a source of morality? I mean it both as a personal question as well as asking why you think people in general take religious texts to be authoritative. Now this isn't the case for every religion - for example Confucianism. The tenets of Confucianism are pretty clear, but I don't think it's a thing for people to start quoting from the Yi Jing, or his book of rites. They seem more like his scholastic works <-- aha I might have found my answer right here. And I'll qualify that not all people see Confucianism as a religion (I don't personally, I just used it as a broad example). But my question still stands: why religious texts? For you or society?
 

droomph

weeb
4,285
Posts
12
Years
That sounds pretty darn good to me. Your thinking is really interesting - it's radical in that you view yourself separate from organized religion, but you still keep faith in the Bible.

Another question, and this is by no means directed only to you droomph: Why are religious texts a source of morality? I mean it both as a personal question as well as asking why you think people in general take religious texts to be authoritative. Now this isn't the case for every religion - for example Confucianism. The tenets of Confucianism are pretty clear, but I don't think it's a thing for people to start quoting from the Yi Jing, or his book of rites. They seem more like his scholastic works <-- aha I might have found my answer right here. And I'll qualify that not all people see Confucianism as a religion (I don't personally, I just used it as a broad example). But my question still stands: why religious texts? For you or society?
I don't know why they use the Bible as a holy thing to swear oaths on, but they do. It's one of the quirks of humanity.

But the real thing I keep my faith in, is what the Bible tells me. There are millions, literally, of copies of the Bible. Without the meaning behind it, it would probably be worse than Twilight or whatever is popular at this time (believe me, it's horribly hard to understand!). But that's the difference - it has a meaning behind it. I believe in that meaning, not the words.
 
Back
Top