Atheism Thread

[Anonymous]

What do you mean 'idiot friend'?
How rude.
And whilst you understood the bit about chilling, you misunderstood the other bit. Why on earth would I ask you to be a saviour?
And your insistance that the belief in the big bang is 'religious thinking' is quite mad.
So you are pretty tiresome too!

No one said anything about "the big bang." Your idiot friend said "Something from nothing, anyone?" and I replied that believing "something" comes from "nothing" is not scientific. I did misread your bit about saviors. You wrote "Why? We can't all be saviours." and I read it as "Why can't we all be saviours?" At least I misread words you actually wrote.

Something does not come from nothing. The Big Bang does not claim something comes from nothing. Even if the laws of physics were "created" after the beginning of The Big Bang, which is not something that happened a long time ago. but something which is still happening, there was something before the Big Bang. Here's a video that's 2 minutes long.



Watch until you get to the 6th dimension where everything that possibly could exist does exist. Consider the implications.

 

[Peterb]

No one said anything about "the big bang." Your idiot friend said "Something from nothing, anyone?" and I replied that believing "something" comes from "nothing" is not scientific. I did misread your bit about saviors. You wrote "Why? We can't all be saviours." and I read it as "Why can't we all be saviours?" At least I misread words you actually wrote.

Something does not come from nothing. The Big Bang does not claim something comes from nothing. Even if the laws of physics were "created" after the beginning of The Big Bang, which is not something that happened a long time ago. but something which is still happening, there was something before the Big Bang. Here's a video that's 2 minutes long.



Watch until you get to the 6th dimension where everything that possibly could exist does exist. Consider the implications.

Whoa! First I'm the idiot friend, and now it's Jehne?
I thought it was Patrick.
I thought we were talking about the big bang (which was something from something very, very small).
Well, I'm getting everything wrong.
I'm clearly out of my depth.

 

[realitybites]

Hey Jehne,
I've gotten myself into a bit of a mess here.
First of all my post was in fact a response to Qvist who said:
"You wrote: I've also seen people comparing the concepts of fairies and unicorns to the god concept. This is also not correct. Philosophically the god concept is reasoned, flowing from the following logical imperative: if the universe was created then a creator must exist. Fairies and unicorns follow from no such logical imperative they are simply completely imaginary."
Secondly I used the term 'logical imperative' which is definitely a smart persons phrase.
However my point was that if people believe in god because they want to explain the creation of the universe, then they believe in other things for other reasons. Does that make sense? (It's early Monday morning and I'm barely conscious).

Yes, that makes sense now Peter. Thanks for clarifying that. My apologies.

 

[realitybites]

No one said anything about "the big bang." Your idiot friend said "Something from nothing, anyone?" and I replied that believing "something" comes from "nothing" is not scientific.

Nothingness into Being

 

[Anonymous]

Whoa! First I'm the idiot friend, and now it's Jehne?
I thought it was Patrick.
I thought we were talking about the big bang (which was something from something very, very small).
Well, I'm getting everything wrong.
I'm clearly out of my depth.

No, the idea that all the matter in our universe was once something "very, very small" is not how the Big Bang theory works. Watch the 2 minute video. Our expanding universe does not have a center and is not all expanding from a central point. It did not all once fit in an infinitesimally small point. Read up.

 

[Peterb]

No, the idea that all the matter in our universe was once something "very, very small" is not how the Big Bang theory works. Watch the 2 minute video. Our expanding universe does not have a center and is not all expanding from a central point. It did not all once fit in an infinitesimally small point. Read up.

If you don't mind, I won't.

 

[realitybites]

Agnostism is a truly cosmic fail!

Against the Gods? A Concise Guide to Atheism and Agnosticism


Between the poles of strong atheism and strict atheism lies agnosticism, the argument that gods are very unlikely, but cannot logically be ruled out as utterly impossible. Agnosticism is considered a cautious, tentative and scientific approach to the question of the existence of gods - Stefan Molyneux's seminal book "Against the Gods?" makes a powerful case against agnosticism and for the positive acceptance of the nonexistence of supernatural beings.

It is not rational to even entertain the possibility of the existence of irrational entities. We do not accept agnosticism about unicorns, fairies, square circles, pixies on the proposition that two and two make five – why do we create a special exception in the realm of deities? Surely it is because the social cost of rejecting God's is far higher than the social cost of rejecting goblins.

"Against the Gods?" provides essential ammunition to those fighting the virus of faith, and clears the mental fog of the irrational middle ground between atheism and theism.


Listen to the full audiobook here:

 

[Skylarker]

Agnostism is a truly cosmic fail!

Against the Gods? A Concise Guide to Atheism and Agnosticism


Between the poles of strong atheism and strict atheism lies agnosticism, the argument that gods are very unlikely, but cannot logically be ruled out as utterly impossible. Agnosticism is considered a cautious, tentative and scientific approach to the question of the existence of gods - Stefan Molyneux's seminal book "Against the Gods?" makes a powerful case against agnosticism and for the positive acceptance of the nonexistence of supernatural beings.

It is not rational to even entertain the possibility of the existence of irrational entities. We do not accept agnosticism about unicorns, fairies, square circles, pixies on the proposition that two and two make five – why do we create a special exception in the realm of deities? Surely it is because the social cost of rejecting God's is far higher than the social cost of rejecting goblins.

"Against the Gods?" provides essential ammunition to those fighting the virus of faith, and clears the mental fog of the irrational middle ground between atheism and theism.


Listen to the full audiobook here:

 

[realitybites]

Why don't you shut the f*** up. You act like some butthurt closeted fundamentalist Christian. You are all over this thread. This thread YOU started. You don't even attempt to refute anything. You seem incapable of a reasoned argument. You never state what you believe or think. Even in your reply to that post made by anonymous, you attack his spelling not his logic--throwing out a straw man. You have no ability to refute atheism. None. These are your retorts: Shut up! Be quiet! Make it stop! Lame. Please don't reply to this. You are too pathetic for words.

 

[Skylarker]

Why don't you shut the f*** up.

Because I don't post here anywhere near as much as you do, for one thing. And when I do post, I'm not telling other people what to believe. You shout your atheist dogmatic church on Sunday nonsense so loudly and so copiously that it is quite obvious you don't believe it yourself and are trying to bolster your own doubt.

You act like some butthurt closeted fundamentalist Christian. You are all over this thread. This thread YOU started.

I'm hardly all over this thread or any other thread these days. And yes, I started this thread, quite a long time ago, as a lark, and you jumped on it or it would have otherwise died off a long, long time back and no one would have missed it or cared.

I carried on with you to varying degrees because I was bored and drinking often at night and on those bored, drunken nights (now long ago) you struck me as someone possibly intelligent and attractive...but then who could know, as you never posted a picture of yourself newer than 1992. Skybites!

You don't even attempt to refute anything. You seem incapable of a reasoned argument.

When you're talking about the kind of things you are CONSTANTLY talking about there IS no "logic." There is no NEED to refute when you are confident. But since we're on the subject, I will clarify the following:

a) I don't care if there is a God or not and
b) if there is or isn't one, I have no way of KNOWING and
c) anyone who says they KNOW either way is a MORON

When you are confident and secure, even in being unsure about something (it's OK to concede ignorance on this topic) you don't NEED to keep proving your point. People who go out of their way to prove their point are the ones who need it proven to themselves. Like you. Talk about a closet case...

You never state what you believe or think.

I don't need to "believe" anything. I listen to all points, all sides, and keep an open mind. And that's AT BEST. I will never side with anyone because I don't have enough faith or evidence, and never will, and neither does any other mortal man. I know I get up for work, pay my bills, see and support my kids, and I try to enjoy what's left of my life, which at 38 isn't much. I don't obsess about God for better OR worse. But you do...because you're significantly older than me (especially in woman years), and you will most likely die sooner...and you're scared He exists.

Even in your reply to that post made by anonymous, you attack his spelling not his logic--throwing out a straw man.

Construction comes before power. You may have a really cool car, but if you can't operate it properly or understand how it works then you're just a poser. That's how I feel about intellectuals who can't f***ing spell...and then blame it on "dyslexia"...

You have no ability to refute atheism. None.

There's nothing to refute. It's like walking up to a bunch of preschoolers and telling them they're wrong about Santa Claus. What's the point? Harbor your nonsense; it's nothing to me. Or it's like trying to converse with Down Syndrome people. Funny for awhile, then sad.

These are your retorts: Shut up! Be quiet! Make it stop! Lame.

Shut up. Be quiet. Make it stop.

Please don't reply to this.

Is that a command, "senior'' member "Jehne"?

You are too pathetic for words.

Oh, clearly. Which explains your two years of desperate flirting, complimenting, defending, stalking, unsolicited non-Solo emails...need I go on?

 

[Anonymous]

 

[Anonymous]

Even in your reply to that post made by anonymous, you attack his spelling not his logic--throwing out a straw man.

This is not even remotely what "straw man" means.

 

[Qvist]

Hey Jehne,
I've gotten myself into a bit of a mess here.
First of all my post was in fact a response to Qvist who said:
"You wrote: I've also seen people comparing the concepts of fairies and unicorns to the god concept. This is also not correct. Philosophically the god concept is reasoned, flowing from the following logical imperative: if the universe was created then a creator must exist. Fairies and unicorns follow from no such logical imperative they are simply completely imaginary."
Secondly I used the term 'logical imperative' which is definitely a smart persons phrase.
However my point was that if people believe in god because they want to explain the creation of the universe, then they believe in other things for other reasons. Does that make sense? (It's early Monday morning and I'm barely conscious).

Unless you're simply agreeing with me, I must admit I have hard time seeing what point you are making.

 

[Anonymous]

Unless you're simply agreeing with me, I must admit I have hard time seeing what point you are making.

You made an intelligent and well-reasoned post and it was mostly ignored because it would require far more effort than anyone is going to put in to keep the conversation at that level. You should have just posted a gif, maybe something like this.

 

[realitybites]

This is not even remotely what "straw man" means.

Just another ad hominem then?

Two of my favorite living atheists in one room. Nice tribute to Hitchens in the last ten minutes.

Richard Dawkins in conversation with Peter Boghossian





Christopher Hitchens - Last Public Appearance - Dawkins Award

 

[FER]

I don't really have the time, or quite frankly, the desire to read thru this thread. But I wonder if anyone here has commented or discussed Zizek and his view:

"Christianity is much more atheist than the usual atheism, which can claim there is no God and so on, but nonetheless it retains a certain trust into the Big Other. This Big Other can be called natural necessity, evolution, or whatever. We humans are nonetheless reduced to a position within the harmonious whole of evolution, whatever, but the difficult thing to accept is again that there is no Big Other, no point of reference which guarantees meaning."

 

[realitybites]

I don't really have the time, or quite frankly, the desire to read thru this thread. But I wonder if anyone here has commented or discussed Zizek and his view:

"Christianity is much more atheist than the usual atheism, which can claim there is no God and so on, but nonetheless it retains a certain trust into the Big Other. This Big Other can be called natural necessity, evolution, or whatever. We humans are nonetheless reduced to a position within the harmonious whole of evolution, whatever, but the difficult thing to accept is again that there is no Big Other, no point of reference which guarantees meaning."

First time he has been mentioned in this thread. Never heard of him until now. From what I read, he is a Marxist critical of Christianity, arguing it is a from of atheism. He seems to have a different definition of atheism from the common definition. Is the Big Other science? I don't know of any atheists that believe in a 'science god'. Science has none of the qualities we ascribe to a deity such as infallibly, omnipresence, omniscience. Science is not god-like a all. Just the opposite. It is fallible, unknowing--seeking answers, dynamic--always changing, and self-correcting.



Great Read: Strong Atheism: The Case for Evacuating the Middle Ground

 

[Peterb]

Unless you're simply agreeing with me, I must admit I have hard time seeing what point you are making.

No I was most certainly not agreeing with you.
I'm sorry you cannot understand my response to your post.
Don't concern yourself. You were simply mistaken.

- - - Updated - - -

You made an intelligent and well-reasoned post and it was mostly ignored because it would require far more effort than anyone is going to put in to keep the conversation at that level. You should have just posted a gif, maybe something like this.

Well done! You've made a valuable contribution.

 

[FER]

First time he has been mentioned in this thread. Never heard of him until now. From what I read, he is a Marxist critical of Christianity, arguing it is a from of atheism. He seems to have a different definition of atheism from the common definition. Is the Big Other science? I don't know of any atheists that believe in a 'science god'. Science has none of the qualities we ascribe to a deity such as infallibly, omnipresence, omniscience. Science is not god-like a all. Just the opposite. It is fallible, unknowing--seeking answers, dynamic--always changing, and self-correcting.



Great Read: Strong Atheism: The Case for Evacuating the Middle Ground

Thanks. My curiosity was piqued when I saw the title of the thread, but I suppose to delve further would require a great deal of typing..."The Big Other" as I interpret it, is an abstract concept that takes some studying to really grasp. I suppose you'd probably have to read "How to Read Lacan" to get a better understanding of the concept. I found it interesting, but on the other hand I am still struggling myself to get a better understanding of exactly what it is he means by it. Anyway, I was curious if someone else on here had a take on it...at the moment I'm listening to The Black Saint and The Sinner Lady so Im not fully in the mindset to take this where it needs to go...god damn this is a bad ass album! Thanks for that link, I'll save it for later.

 

[realitybites]

Thanks. My curiosity was piqued when I saw the title of the thread, but I suppose to delve further would require a great deal of typing..."The Big Other" as I interpret it, is an abstract concept that takes some studying to really grasp. I suppose you'd probably have to read "How to Read Lacan" to get a better understanding of the concept. I found it interesting, but on the other hand I am still struggling myself to get a better understanding of exactly what it is he means by it. Anyway, I was curious if someone else on here had a take on it...at the moment I'm listening to The Black Saint and The Sinner Lady so Im not fully in the mindset to take this where it needs to go...god damn this is a bad ass album! Thanks for that link, I'll save it for later.

You are welcome. Thank you for the info. And this: