Atheists/Agnostics
Options
Comments
-
Atheism and Agnosticism aren't the same thing.
A-theism is the philosophical denial of any deity in the known universe.
Gnosticism is simply the questioning of traditional or orthodox beliefs about ? .
Now there's a difference between eastern religions like buddhism, hinduism, shintoism, and other smaller religions and then abrahamic religions like islam, christianity, and judaism.
primary difference is that eastern religions are more fluid and more tolerant of divergent unorthodox beliefs. There is no one way to salvation, and if you not really ? with a particular pantheon then find one you do ? with. Eastern religions tend to be a search for truth.
Abrahamic religions are the opposite, they are rigid, intolerant, and the path to salvation is clearly outlined, if you step ouside that path there are consequences. Abrahamic religions aren't concerned with truth so much as obedience to doctrine. Questioning doctrine is itself an act of treason. Searching for knowledge or truth outside of what is given as doctrine is heresy. Abrahamic religions tend to be closed off, inflexible, and need practitioner to be stupid, gullible and fearful. Because Abrahamic religions are so rigid they cannot coexist with any competing religious beliefs, which is why all nonbelievers are treated with contempt, persecuted, and treated as enemies.
because Abrahamic religions are so inflexible and hostile it lends itself to out right criticism and mockery as time goes on. The only way Abrahamic religions can qash criticism is through violent suppression. here in the west that is a no go, but in the Middle East and Africa, heads get chopped, ? get stoned and kicked out of houses.
So when atheists and agnostics go in on religion, they focus on these religions because Christianity and Judaism and Islam be doin the most.
Now an intellectual, or fact based denial of these particular religious doctrines is rather easy. Because Abrahamic religions insist on their stories taking place in actual history (literal) then all you have to do is show how dates don't match up contradict. You can also go in on actual recorded history that talks about the creation of certain figures like jesus, and how stories from the bible re plagiarized from other mythologies. We can talk about the lack of evidence for a people kept in Egypt as slaves or even being there for 400 years, or we could talk about how here is a lack of evidence for a physical place known as israel or judah.
But honestly, we've beaten that particular argument into the ground. At this point it's a matter of belief, and belief is based on emotions not intellect People are emotionally invested into their particular religion and are going to reason their way and perform all types of mental gymnastics to argue why their beliefs are true and their ? is literal and real.
Even atheism is a belief based on emotion. People are invested in proving that ? isn't rel and that the material universe is all that exists or matter. Consequently, atheists will ignore or rationalize evidence that contradicts their beliefs.
The first thing you need to do is point out that evidence. I haven't seen any properly presented. Atheist generally go against the belief in theism without evidence and the blatant manufacturing of universal events. It's not up to an Atheist to prove anything really, and the categorical denial is based on the same stuff that you just mentioned. You can't just make ? up and say that's all folks. Now disprove the Easter Bunny. Easy. Some idiot made it up. No Atheist would attempt to disprove universal truths without evidence supporting it in the first place. Honestly, i don't even like the word Atheist since disproving something that hasn't been proven in the first place is circular logic, but I'm damn sure no agnostic because that's just giving ignoring fallacious, yet imposing and societal altering narrative, and giving people a pass.
-
Going over the evidence against Christianity time and time again is like trying to tell somebody that jet fuel can't melt steel beams.
But anyone can look up Walter Williams historical origins of Christianity. -
Atheism and Agnosticism aren't the same thing.
A-theism is the philosophical denial of any deity in the known universe.
Gnosticism is simply the questioning of traditional or orthodox beliefs about ? .
Now there's a difference between eastern religions like buddhism, hinduism, shintoism, and other smaller religions and then abrahamic religions like islam, christianity, and judaism.
primary difference is that eastern religions are more fluid and more tolerant of divergent unorthodox beliefs. There is no one way to salvation, and if you not really ? with a particular pantheon then find one you do ? with. Eastern religions tend to be a search for truth.
Abrahamic religions are the opposite, they are rigid, intolerant, and the path to salvation is clearly outlined, if you step ouside that path there are consequences. Abrahamic religions aren't concerned with truth so much as obedience to doctrine. Questioning doctrine is itself an act of treason. Searching for knowledge or truth outside of what is given as doctrine is heresy. Abrahamic religions tend to be closed off, inflexible, and need practitioner to be stupid, gullible and fearful. Because Abrahamic religions are so rigid they cannot coexist with any competing religious beliefs, which is why all nonbelievers are treated with contempt, persecuted, and treated as enemies.
because Abrahamic religions are so inflexible and hostile it lends itself to out right criticism and mockery as time goes on. The only way Abrahamic religions can qash criticism is through violent suppression. here in the west that is a no go, but in the Middle East and Africa, heads get chopped, ? get stoned and kicked out of houses.
So when atheists and agnostics go in on religion, they focus on these religions because Christianity and Judaism and Islam be doin the most.
Now an intellectual, or fact based denial of these particular religious doctrines is rather easy. Because Abrahamic religions insist on their stories taking place in actual history (literal) then all you have to do is show how dates don't match up contradict. You can also go in on actual recorded history that talks about the creation of certain figures like jesus, and how stories from the bible re plagiarized from other mythologies. We can talk about the lack of evidence for a people kept in Egypt as slaves or even being there for 400 years, or we could talk about how here is a lack of evidence for a physical place known as israel or judah.
But honestly, we've beaten that particular argument into the ground. At this point it's a matter of belief, and belief is based on emotions not intellect People are emotionally invested into their particular religion and are going to reason their way and perform all types of mental gymnastics to argue why their beliefs are true and their ? is literal and real.
Even atheism is a belief based on emotion. People are invested in proving that ? isn't rel and that the material universe is all that exists or matter. Consequently, atheists will ignore or rationalize evidence that contradicts their beliefs.
Scripturally speaking, it's not hearsay to question doctrine. But modern day religion would have us think so. You are focusing on the pulpit pimpin which is more prevalent I agree. Seeking truth is what scripture promotes.
It's a code of conduct. Treat others the way you would want to be treated, live honorably, or there will be consequences. Cause/effect spiritual laws. All the evil that is done in the name of religion/? /Allah/etc. isn't apart of the doctrine.
What dates are you speaking of that don't match up? -
Going over the evidence against Christianity time and time again is like trying to tell somebody that jet fuel can't melt steel beams.
But anyone can look up Walter Williams historical origins of Christianity.
It's not about going over the evidence against Christianity, that's easy, man created it, case closed. I'm saying, where is the evidence to support the idea that there is a ? . This goes for all religions. Hindus don't get a pass, they just killed somebody in India for eating cow meat. smh. Buddhist got a interesting history too but not as wide spread with violence like Christianity, but let's just look at Japan for instance which was highly religious during ww2, and followed Buddhism and an offshoot Shintoism. They had some of the first suicide attackers. Or let's look at Burma. But it's not really even about the ignorance and violence. Religion regardless of their overall direction holds the same problems of spreading fallacy and no matter how you spin it. I want to at least see some sort of scientific model even though that will only get you so far when proposing that that's the grand conclusion without testable evidence. -
Atheism and Agnosticism aren't the same thing.
A-theism is the philosophical denial of any deity in the known universe.
Gnosticism is simply the questioning of traditional or orthodox beliefs about ? .
Now there's a difference between eastern religions like buddhism, hinduism, shintoism, and other smaller religions and then abrahamic religions like islam, christianity, and judaism.
primary difference is that eastern religions are more fluid and more tolerant of divergent unorthodox beliefs. There is no one way to salvation, and if you not really ? with a particular pantheon then find one you do ? with. Eastern religions tend to be a search for truth.
Abrahamic religions are the opposite, they are rigid, intolerant, and the path to salvation is clearly outlined, if you step ouside that path there are consequences. Abrahamic religions aren't concerned with truth so much as obedience to doctrine. Questioning doctrine is itself an act of treason. Searching for knowledge or truth outside of what is given as doctrine is heresy. Abrahamic religions tend to be closed off, inflexible, and need practitioner to be stupid, gullible and fearful. Because Abrahamic religions are so rigid they cannot coexist with any competing religious beliefs, which is why all nonbelievers are treated with contempt, persecuted, and treated as enemies.
because Abrahamic religions are so inflexible and hostile it lends itself to out right criticism and mockery as time goes on. The only way Abrahamic religions can qash criticism is through violent suppression. here in the west that is a no go, but in the Middle East and Africa, heads get chopped, ? get stoned and kicked out of houses.
So when atheists and agnostics go in on religion, they focus on these religions because Christianity and Judaism and Islam be doin the most.
Now an intellectual, or fact based denial of these particular religious doctrines is rather easy. Because Abrahamic religions insist on their stories taking place in actual history (literal) then all you have to do is show how dates don't match up contradict. You can also go in on actual recorded history that talks about the creation of certain figures like jesus, and how stories from the bible re plagiarized from other mythologies. We can talk about the lack of evidence for a people kept in Egypt as slaves or even being there for 400 years, or we could talk about how here is a lack of evidence for a physical place known as israel or judah.
But honestly, we've beaten that particular argument into the ground. At this point it's a matter of belief, and belief is based on emotions not intellect People are emotionally invested into their particular religion and are going to reason their way and perform all types of mental gymnastics to argue why their beliefs are true and their ? is literal and real.
Even atheism is a belief based on emotion. People are invested in proving that ? isn't rel and that the material universe is all that exists or matter. Consequently, atheists will ignore or rationalize evidence that contradicts their beliefs.
The first thing you need to do is point out that evidence. I haven't seen any properly presented. Atheist generally go against the belief in theism without evidence and the blatant manufacturing of universal events. It's not up to an Atheist to prove anything really, and the categorical denial is based on the same stuff that you just mentioned. You can't just make ? up and say that's all folks. Now disprove the Easter Bunny. Easy. Some idiot made it up. No Atheist would attempt to disprove universal truths without evidence supporting it in the first place. Honestly, i don't even like the word Atheist since disproving something that hasn't been proven in the first place is circular logic, but I'm damn sure no agnostic because that's just giving ignoring fallacious, yet imposing and societal altering narrative, and giving people a pass.
We exist. Science has proven that the universe has a starting point and did not always exist. life and the laws of the physical universe ARE very ordered. Therefore the likelihood of a designer existing cannot simply be dismissed.
The dates given in the bible not being exact or matching up with the accounts of other civilization should not mean much, the dates in science and history aren't exact either. Even today if you read history text books from different nations they don't all have the same dates for the same events. That phenomenon would probably have been even more pronounced thousands of years ago.
The fact that some of the early stories of genesis and even the archetype of jesus is found in earlier writing also would not be a problem if people understood what the old testament really is. It's largely a book of the ethnogenesis of a nomadic people as they go from roaming to settlement, it's ? creating an ethnic group for his purposes and that is one of the key things people don't pay attention to when they read the old testament with a critical eye
? created israel from the differing peoples of the middle east and africa setting them apart from everyone else so of course some of the stories and folklore are going to be related. Remember according to both science and the bible the entire human species all originate from a small family. -
Atheism and Agnosticism aren't the same thing.
A-theism is the philosophical denial of any deity in the known universe.
Gnosticism is simply the questioning of traditional or orthodox beliefs about ? .
Now there's a difference between eastern religions like buddhism, hinduism, shintoism, and other smaller religions and then abrahamic religions like islam, christianity, and judaism.
primary difference is that eastern religions are more fluid and more tolerant of divergent unorthodox beliefs. There is no one way to salvation, and if you not really ? with a particular pantheon then find one you do ? with. Eastern religions tend to be a search for truth.
Abrahamic religions are the opposite, they are rigid, intolerant, and the path to salvation is clearly outlined, if you step ouside that path there are consequences. Abrahamic religions aren't concerned with truth so much as obedience to doctrine. Questioning doctrine is itself an act of treason. Searching for knowledge or truth outside of what is given as doctrine is heresy. Abrahamic religions tend to be closed off, inflexible, and need practitioner to be stupid, gullible and fearful. Because Abrahamic religions are so rigid they cannot coexist with any competing religious beliefs, which is why all nonbelievers are treated with contempt, persecuted, and treated as enemies.
because Abrahamic religions are so inflexible and hostile it lends itself to out right criticism and mockery as time goes on. The only way Abrahamic religions can qash criticism is through violent suppression. here in the west that is a no go, but in the Middle East and Africa, heads get chopped, ? get stoned and kicked out of houses.
So when atheists and agnostics go in on religion, they focus on these religions because Christianity and Judaism and Islam be doin the most.
Now an intellectual, or fact based denial of these particular religious doctrines is rather easy. Because Abrahamic religions insist on their stories taking place in actual history (literal) then all you have to do is show how dates don't match up contradict. You can also go in on actual recorded history that talks about the creation of certain figures like jesus, and how stories from the bible re plagiarized from other mythologies. We can talk about the lack of evidence for a people kept in Egypt as slaves or even being there for 400 years, or we could talk about how here is a lack of evidence for a physical place known as israel or judah.
But honestly, we've beaten that particular argument into the ground. At this point it's a matter of belief, and belief is based on emotions not intellect People are emotionally invested into their particular religion and are going to reason their way and perform all types of mental gymnastics to argue why their beliefs are true and their ? is literal and real.
Even atheism is a belief based on emotion. People are invested in proving that ? isn't rel and that the material universe is all that exists or matter. Consequently, atheists will ignore or rationalize evidence that contradicts their beliefs.
The first thing you need to do is point out that evidence. I haven't seen any properly presented. Atheist generally go against the belief in theism without evidence and the blatant manufacturing of universal events. It's not up to an Atheist to prove anything really, and the categorical denial is based on the same stuff that you just mentioned. You can't just make ? up and say that's all folks. Now disprove the Easter Bunny. Easy. Some idiot made it up. No Atheist would attempt to disprove universal truths without evidence supporting it in the first place. Honestly, i don't even like the word Atheist since disproving something that hasn't been proven in the first place is circular logic, but I'm damn sure no agnostic because that's just giving ignoring fallacious, yet imposing and societal altering narrative, and giving people a pass.
We exist. Science has proven that the universe has a starting point and did not always exist. life and the laws of the physical universe ARE very ordered. Therefore the likelihood of a designer existing cannot simply be dismissed.
The dates given in the bible not being exact or matching up with the accounts of other civilization should not mean much, the dates in science and history aren't exact either. Even today if you read history text books from different nations they don't all have the same dates for the same events. That phenomenon would probably have been even more pronounced thousands of years ago.
The fact that some of the early stories of genesis and even the archetype of jesus is found in earlier writing also would not be a problem if people understood what the old testament really is. It's largely a book of the ethnogenesis of a nomadic people as they go from roaming to settlement, it's ? creating an ethnic group for his purposes and that is one of the key things people don't pay attention to when they read the old testament with a critical eye
? created israel from the differing peoples of the middle east and africa setting them apart from everyone else so of course some of the stories and folklore are going to be related. Remember according to both science and the bible the entire human species all originate from a small family.
So basically, you are coming to a final conclusion without evidence and your homies of old made it all up right? Cool stories mans past excursions are not evidence, leaping to a conclusion that man exist so there must be a ? is not evidence. We actually as man haven't created anything outside of the universe that can be compared to a mighty being creating the universe. Everything from computers to airplanes were created with elements of the universe, so how does that prove ? all of sudden? Science has hypothesized that there was a beginning, but there is no final evidence pointing to the nature of that beginning or if there is a cycle. -
Atheism and Agnosticism aren't the same thing.
A-theism is the philosophical denial of any deity in the known universe.
Gnosticism is simply the questioning of traditional or orthodox beliefs about ? .
Now there's a difference between eastern religions like buddhism, hinduism, shintoism, and other smaller religions and then abrahamic religions like islam, christianity, and judaism.
primary difference is that eastern religions are more fluid and more tolerant of divergent unorthodox beliefs. There is no one way to salvation, and if you not really ? with a particular pantheon then find one you do ? with. Eastern religions tend to be a search for truth.
Abrahamic religions are the opposite, they are rigid, intolerant, and the path to salvation is clearly outlined, if you step ouside that path there are consequences. Abrahamic religions aren't concerned with truth so much as obedience to doctrine. Questioning doctrine is itself an act of treason. Searching for knowledge or truth outside of what is given as doctrine is heresy. Abrahamic religions tend to be closed off, inflexible, and need practitioner to be stupid, gullible and fearful. Because Abrahamic religions are so rigid they cannot coexist with any competing religious beliefs, which is why all nonbelievers are treated with contempt, persecuted, and treated as enemies.
because Abrahamic religions are so inflexible and hostile it lends itself to out right criticism and mockery as time goes on. The only way Abrahamic religions can qash criticism is through violent suppression. here in the west that is a no go, but in the Middle East and Africa, heads get chopped, ? get stoned and kicked out of houses.
So when atheists and agnostics go in on religion, they focus on these religions because Christianity and Judaism and Islam be doin the most.
Now an intellectual, or fact based denial of these particular religious doctrines is rather easy. Because Abrahamic religions insist on their stories taking place in actual history (literal) then all you have to do is show how dates don't match up contradict. You can also go in on actual recorded history that talks about the creation of certain figures like jesus, and how stories from the bible re plagiarized from other mythologies. We can talk about the lack of evidence for a people kept in Egypt as slaves or even being there for 400 years, or we could talk about how here is a lack of evidence for a physical place known as israel or judah.
But honestly, we've beaten that particular argument into the ground. At this point it's a matter of belief, and belief is based on emotions not intellect People are emotionally invested into their particular religion and are going to reason their way and perform all types of mental gymnastics to argue why their beliefs are true and their ? is literal and real.
Even atheism is a belief based on emotion. People are invested in proving that ? isn't rel and that the material universe is all that exists or matter. Consequently, atheists will ignore or rationalize evidence that contradicts their beliefs.
The first thing you need to do is point out that evidence. I haven't seen any properly presented. Atheist generally go against the belief in theism without evidence and the blatant manufacturing of universal events. It's not up to an Atheist to prove anything really, and the categorical denial is based on the same stuff that you just mentioned. You can't just make ? up and say that's all folks. Now disprove the Easter Bunny. Easy. Some idiot made it up. No Atheist would attempt to disprove universal truths without evidence supporting it in the first place. Honestly, i don't even like the word Atheist since disproving something that hasn't been proven in the first place is circular logic, but I'm damn sure no agnostic because that's just giving ignoring fallacious, yet imposing and societal altering narrative, and giving people a pass.
We exist. Science has proven that the universe has a starting point and did not always exist. life and the laws of the physical universe ARE very ordered. Therefore the likelihood of a designer existing cannot simply be dismissed.
The dates given in the bible not being exact or matching up with the accounts of other civilization should not mean much, the dates in science and history aren't exact either. Even today if you read history text books from different nations they don't all have the same dates for the same events. That phenomenon would probably have been even more pronounced thousands of years ago.
The fact that some of the early stories of genesis and even the archetype of jesus is found in earlier writing also would not be a problem if people understood what the old testament really is. It's largely a book of the ethnogenesis of a nomadic people as they go from roaming to settlement, it's ? creating an ethnic group for his purposes and that is one of the key things people don't pay attention to when they read the old testament with a critical eye
? created israel from the differing peoples of the middle east and africa setting them apart from everyone else so of course some of the stories and folklore are going to be related. Remember according to both science and the bible the entire human species all originate from a small family.
So basically, you are coming to a final conclusion without evidence and your homies of old made it all up right? Cool stories are not evidence, leaping to a conclusion that man exist so there must be a ? is not evidence. We actually as man haven't created anything outside of the universe that can be compared to a mighty being creating the universe. Everything from computers to airplanes were created with elements of the universe, so how does that prove ? all of sudden? Science has hypothesized that there was a beginning, but there is no final evidence pointing to the nature of that beginning or if there is a cycle.
The evidence is that the universe exist and life is too complex, proteins cannot just arise by chance.
As for the bold you are wrong science has disproved the eternal universe also called the steady state universe.... there is a new theory that allows for a eternal universe but the theory is so new that it hasn't been totally scrutinized yet AND it also has issues.
Going by the laws of the universe we can say that the more complex a creation is the MORE the likelihood of a designer increases, the airplane and computer didn't just pop into being. No one would ever think that a skyscrapper just popped into being why should we think the universe just popped into being???? -
Atheism and Agnosticism aren't the same thing.
A-theism is the philosophical denial of any deity in the known universe.
Gnosticism is simply the questioning of traditional or orthodox beliefs about ? .
Now there's a difference between eastern religions like buddhism, hinduism, shintoism, and other smaller religions and then abrahamic religions like islam, christianity, and judaism.
primary difference is that eastern religions are more fluid and more tolerant of divergent unorthodox beliefs. There is no one way to salvation, and if you not really ? with a particular pantheon then find one you do ? with. Eastern religions tend to be a search for truth.
Abrahamic religions are the opposite, they are rigid, intolerant, and the path to salvation is clearly outlined, if you step ouside that path there are consequences. Abrahamic religions aren't concerned with truth so much as obedience to doctrine. Questioning doctrine is itself an act of treason. Searching for knowledge or truth outside of what is given as doctrine is heresy. Abrahamic religions tend to be closed off, inflexible, and need practitioner to be stupid, gullible and fearful. Because Abrahamic religions are so rigid they cannot coexist with any competing religious beliefs, which is why all nonbelievers are treated with contempt, persecuted, and treated as enemies.
because Abrahamic religions are so inflexible and hostile it lends itself to out right criticism and mockery as time goes on. The only way Abrahamic religions can qash criticism is through violent suppression. here in the west that is a no go, but in the Middle East and Africa, heads get chopped, ? get stoned and kicked out of houses.
So when atheists and agnostics go in on religion, they focus on these religions because Christianity and Judaism and Islam be doin the most.
Now an intellectual, or fact based denial of these particular religious doctrines is rather easy. Because Abrahamic religions insist on their stories taking place in actual history (literal) then all you have to do is show how dates don't match up contradict. You can also go in on actual recorded history that talks about the creation of certain figures like jesus, and how stories from the bible re plagiarized from other mythologies. We can talk about the lack of evidence for a people kept in Egypt as slaves or even being there for 400 years, or we could talk about how here is a lack of evidence for a physical place known as israel or judah.
But honestly, we've beaten that particular argument into the ground. At this point it's a matter of belief, and belief is based on emotions not intellect People are emotionally invested into their particular religion and are going to reason their way and perform all types of mental gymnastics to argue why their beliefs are true and their ? is literal and real.
Even atheism is a belief based on emotion. People are invested in proving that ? isn't rel and that the material universe is all that exists or matter. Consequently, atheists will ignore or rationalize evidence that contradicts their beliefs.
The first thing you need to do is point out that evidence. I haven't seen any properly presented. Atheist generally go against the belief in theism without evidence and the blatant manufacturing of universal events. It's not up to an Atheist to prove anything really, and the categorical denial is based on the same stuff that you just mentioned. You can't just make ? up and say that's all folks. Now disprove the Easter Bunny. Easy. Some idiot made it up. No Atheist would attempt to disprove universal truths without evidence supporting it in the first place. Honestly, i don't even like the word Atheist since disproving something that hasn't been proven in the first place is circular logic, but I'm damn sure no agnostic because that's just giving ignoring fallacious, yet imposing and societal altering narrative, and giving people a pass.
We exist. Science has proven that the universe has a starting point and did not always exist. life and the laws of the physical universe ARE very ordered. Therefore the likelihood of a designer existing cannot simply be dismissed.
The dates given in the bible not being exact or matching up with the accounts of other civilization should not mean much, the dates in science and history aren't exact either. Even today if you read history text books from different nations they don't all have the same dates for the same events. That phenomenon would probably have been even more pronounced thousands of years ago.
The fact that some of the early stories of genesis and even the archetype of jesus is found in earlier writing also would not be a problem if people understood what the old testament really is. It's largely a book of the ethnogenesis of a nomadic people as they go from roaming to settlement, it's ? creating an ethnic group for his purposes and that is one of the key things people don't pay attention to when they read the old testament with a critical eye
? created israel from the differing peoples of the middle east and africa setting them apart from everyone else so of course some of the stories and folklore are going to be related. Remember according to both science and the bible the entire human species all originate from a small family.
So basically, you are coming to a final conclusion without evidence and your homies of old made it all up right? Cool stories are not evidence, leaping to a conclusion that man exist so there must be a ? is not evidence. We actually as man haven't created anything outside of the universe that can be compared to a mighty being creating the universe. Everything from computers to airplanes were created with elements of the universe, so how does that prove ? all of sudden? Science has hypothesized that there was a beginning, but there is no final evidence pointing to the nature of that beginning or if there is a cycle.
The evidence is that the universe exist and life is too complex, proteins cannot just arise by chance.
As for the bold you are wrong science has disproved the eternal universe also called the steady state universe.... there is a new theory that allows for a eternal universe but the theory is so new that it hasn't been totally scrutinized yet AND it also has issues.
Going by the laws of the universe we can say that the more complex a creation is the MORE the likelihood of a designer increases, the airplane and computer didn't just pop into being. No one would ever think that a skyscrapper just popped into being why should we think the universe just popped into being????
That's not disproving anything, that's someone offering an alternative theory. I didn't say a eternal universe, i said a cycle, which means, it can exist in a different states or go through a cycle of compression and expansion. What's complex and simple when it comes to the universe or creation? That's all very relative. Is the creation of fire really so simple when fire couldn't exist without oxygen and energy? Every damn thing in existence is already complex when you really look at it including the process of taking a ? . -
Here's the contradictory thing about atheist scientist when it comes down to it they believe that the universe just popped into existence (quantum fluctuations in a vaccum) but everything else they believe came about following strict laws of physics physics we cannot totally understand especially at the quantum level.... but that's another story
-
Here's the contradictory thing about atheist scientist when it comes down to it they believe that the universe just popped into existence (quantum fluctuations in a vaccum) but everything else they believe came about following strict laws of physics physics we cannot totally understand especially at the quantum level.... but that's another story
There is not such thing as an atheist scientist. You either are a scientist or aren't. Being atheist is a position specifically focused on the question of theism. Believing something about the state of the universe holds no weight without ultimate proof. Most people are comfortable with calling it a speculation and not basing their entire life around something unproven. Scientist talk about the nature of physics potentially changing and physics being different outside of our galaxy all the time. We really don't know everything, but making things up and saying that's the final answer without proof isn't particularly intelligent. -
Atheism and Agnosticism aren't the same thing.
A-theism is the philosophical denial of any deity in the known universe.
Gnosticism is simply the questioning of traditional or orthodox beliefs about ? .
Now there's a difference between eastern religions like buddhism, hinduism, shintoism, and other smaller religions and then abrahamic religions like islam, christianity, and judaism.
primary difference is that eastern religions are more fluid and more tolerant of divergent unorthodox beliefs. There is no one way to salvation, and if you not really ? with a particular pantheon then find one you do ? with. Eastern religions tend to be a search for truth.
Abrahamic religions are the opposite, they are rigid, intolerant, and the path to salvation is clearly outlined, if you step ouside that path there are consequences. Abrahamic religions aren't concerned with truth so much as obedience to doctrine. Questioning doctrine is itself an act of treason. Searching for knowledge or truth outside of what is given as doctrine is heresy. Abrahamic religions tend to be closed off, inflexible, and need practitioner to be stupid, gullible and fearful. Because Abrahamic religions are so rigid they cannot coexist with any competing religious beliefs, which is why all nonbelievers are treated with contempt, persecuted, and treated as enemies.
because Abrahamic religions are so inflexible and hostile it lends itself to out right criticism and mockery as time goes on. The only way Abrahamic religions can qash criticism is through violent suppression. here in the west that is a no go, but in the Middle East and Africa, heads get chopped, ? get stoned and kicked out of houses.
So when atheists and agnostics go in on religion, they focus on these religions because Christianity and Judaism and Islam be doin the most.
Now an intellectual, or fact based denial of these particular religious doctrines is rather easy. Because Abrahamic religions insist on their stories taking place in actual history (literal) then all you have to do is show how dates don't match up contradict. You can also go in on actual recorded history that talks about the creation of certain figures like jesus, and how stories from the bible re plagiarized from other mythologies. We can talk about the lack of evidence for a people kept in Egypt as slaves or even being there for 400 years, or we could talk about how here is a lack of evidence for a physical place known as israel or judah.
But honestly, we've beaten that particular argument into the ground. At this point it's a matter of belief, and belief is based on emotions not intellect People are emotionally invested into their particular religion and are going to reason their way and perform all types of mental gymnastics to argue why their beliefs are true and their ? is literal and real.
Even atheism is a belief based on emotion. People are invested in proving that ? isn't rel and that the material universe is all that exists or matter. Consequently, atheists will ignore or rationalize evidence that contradicts their beliefs.
The first thing you need to do is point out that evidence. I haven't seen any properly presented. Atheist generally go against the belief in theism without evidence and the blatant manufacturing of universal events. It's not up to an Atheist to prove anything really, and the categorical denial is based on the same stuff that you just mentioned. You can't just make ? up and say that's all folks. Now disprove the Easter Bunny. Easy. Some idiot made it up. No Atheist would attempt to disprove universal truths without evidence supporting it in the first place. Honestly, i don't even like the word Atheist since disproving something that hasn't been proven in the first place is circular logic, but I'm damn sure no agnostic because that's just giving ignoring fallacious, yet imposing and societal altering narrative, and giving people a pass.
We exist. Science has proven that the universe has a starting point and did not always exist. life and the laws of the physical universe ARE very ordered. Therefore the likelihood of a designer existing cannot simply be dismissed.
The dates given in the bible not being exact or matching up with the accounts of other civilization should not mean much, the dates in science and history aren't exact either. Even today if you read history text books from different nations they don't all have the same dates for the same events. That phenomenon would probably have been even more pronounced thousands of years ago.
The fact that some of the early stories of genesis and even the archetype of jesus is found in earlier writing also would not be a problem if people understood what the old testament really is. It's largely a book of the ethnogenesis of a nomadic people as they go from roaming to settlement, it's ? creating an ethnic group for his purposes and that is one of the key things people don't pay attention to when they read the old testament with a critical eye
? created israel from the differing peoples of the middle east and africa setting them apart from everyone else so of course some of the stories and folklore are going to be related. Remember according to both science and the bible the entire human species all originate from a small family.
So basically, you are coming to a final conclusion without evidence and your homies of old made it all up right? Cool stories are not evidence, leaping to a conclusion that man exist so there must be a ? is not evidence. We actually as man haven't created anything outside of the universe that can be compared to a mighty being creating the universe. Everything from computers to airplanes were created with elements of the universe, so how does that prove ? all of sudden? Science has hypothesized that there was a beginning, but there is no final evidence pointing to the nature of that beginning or if there is a cycle.
The evidence is that the universe exist and life is too complex, proteins cannot just arise by chance.
As for the bold you are wrong science has disproved the eternal universe also called the steady state universe.... there is a new theory that allows for a eternal universe but the theory is so new that it hasn't been totally scrutinized yet AND it also has issues.
Going by the laws of the universe we can say that the more complex a creation is the MORE the likelihood of a designer increases, the airplane and computer didn't just pop into being. No one would ever think that a skyscrapper just popped into being why should we think the universe just popped into being????
That's not disproving anything, that's someone offering an alternative theory. I didn't say a eternal universe, i said a cycle, which means, it can exist in a different states or go through a cycle of compression and expansion. What's complex and simple when it comes to the universe or creation? That's all very relative. Is the creation of fire really so simple when fire couldn't exist without oxygen and energy? Every damn thing in existence is already complex when you really look at it including the process of taking a ? .
If the universe exists in a cycle then it's eternal. And the complexity of fire pales in comparison with the huge number of forces that would have to come together just right for life to exist especially intelligent life and life in abundance like we have on earth.
The steady state universe is what you described but that theory has been eliminated. -
Here's the contradictory thing about atheist scientist when it comes down to it they believe that the universe just popped into existence (quantum fluctuations in a vaccum) but everything else they believe came about following strict laws of physics physics we cannot totally understand especially at the quantum level.... but that's another story
There is not such thing as an atheist scientist. You either are a scientist or aren't. Being atheist is a position specifically focused on the question of theism. Believing something about the state of the universe holds no weight without ultimate proof. Most people are comfortable with calling it a speculation and not basing their entire life around something unproven. Scientist talk about the nature of physics potentially changing and physics being different outside of our galaxy all the time. We really don't know everything, but making things up and saying that's the final answer without proof isn't particularly intelligent.
Some atheist are scientist some scientist are atheist hence, atheist scientist.
when it comes to cosmology and the earliest stages of the universe all scientist are really doing is making up conclusions without proof they just keep changing their conclusion every 10 years to the point of absurdity -
Before we can question whether or not a ? or gods or any similar entity exists, we have to first question our concept of ? .
Then we have to question whether or not we possess the perception or tools to perceive a ? .
The limitations of our accepted tools of knowledge is for a 3d material universe. -
This old white ? , tom campbell drop some serious ass theory into the conversation. That perhaps our reality is a virtual one.
https://youtu.be/-RMOGFaOLSQ -
Before we can question whether or not a ? or gods or any similar entity exists, we have to first question our concept of ? .
Then we have to question whether or not we possess the perception or tools to perceive a ? .
The limitations of our accepted tools of knowledge is for a 3d material universe.
Excellent statement. What is your concept of ? (s)?
-
Here's the contradictory thing about atheist scientist when it comes down to it they believe that the universe just popped into existence (quantum fluctuations in a vaccum) but everything else they believe came about following strict laws of physics physics we cannot totally understand especially at the quantum level.... but that's another story
There is not such thing as an atheist scientist. You either are a scientist or aren't. Being atheist is a position specifically focused on the question of theism. Believing something about the state of the universe holds no weight without ultimate proof. Most people are comfortable with calling it a speculation and not basing their entire life around something unproven. Scientist talk about the nature of physics potentially changing and physics being different outside of our galaxy all the time. We really don't know everything, but making things up and saying that's the final answer without proof isn't particularly intelligent.
Some atheist are scientist some scientist are atheist hence, atheist scientist.
when it comes to cosmology and the earliest stages of the universe all scientist are really doing is making up conclusions without proof they just keep changing their conclusion every 10 years to the point of absurdity
I can't argue with that. Still doesn't help your argument. Science isn't infallible. Actually, it's fallibility is it's strength sense it keeps people driving for the more accurate path. Being an atheist does't affect the validity of the scientific method. -
Before we can question whether or not a ? or gods or any similar entity exists, we have to first question our concept of ? .
Then we have to question whether or not we possess the perception or tools to perceive a ? .
The limitations of our accepted tools of knowledge is for a 3d material universe.
So you cool with people making up their own concepts regardless of evidence? If it's just a question and nobody actually attempts to gain those tools (which we have step by step at an increasing pace regardless of the invisible goal post) then why come to such a specific conclusion and hold is as absolute when there could be an number of scenario? Regarding that scenario, it's nothing to point to a requirement that some one had to spin a top for this to pop off. Our intelligence only exist within the bounds of this universe because it's part of this universe. But what makes it so other worldly, or this universe so specific that it requires an intelligence? -
NeighborhoodNomad. wrote: »Before we can question whether or not a ? or gods or any similar entity exists, we have to first question our concept of ? .
Then we have to question whether or not we possess the perception or tools to perceive a ? .
The limitations of our accepted tools of knowledge is for a 3d material universe.
Excellent statement. What is your concept of ? (s)?
gods are personal concepts not universal, i am ? -
imgoingtoheavenru? wrote: »kingblaze84 wrote: »I have agnostic tendencies, though I often think there could be a higher power out there. And some days, I think maybe there isn't. I will admit to strongly disliking the Bible ? but otherwise, I just don't see a lot of evidence of a "powerful" ? out there, though I do believe there are some forms of design in the universe. So I guess my mind is open to different possibilities, but I without a doubt think the Abrahamic ? is phony.
if the bolded ain't one of the most asinine narcissistic most prideful statements I have ever heard, I don't know what is!
You go create a universe ex nihilo if the heavens don't declare a "powerful ? "
You go create a sun ex nihilo if the sun doesn't keep you warm enough
You go create water ex nihilo since you can do better!
You go create an earth and hang it upon nothing since you have more power!
I'm waiting.......
Who created disease? Who created tsunamis, tornadoes, earthquakes, cancer, babies being born with no eyes, babies born with cerebral palsy? Water borne diseases? Did your ? create these things? If so, he's a giant ? up.
If your ? did NOT create these things, then your ? is still a little weakling because it should be destroying the force creating these things. If your ? is UNABLE to stop these things, then how can I call it a ? ? If your ? is UNWILLING to stop these things, then it very well could be a ? and an ? . -
kingblaze84 wrote: »imgoingtoheavenru? wrote: »kingblaze84 wrote: »I have agnostic tendencies, though I often think there could be a higher power out there. And some days, I think maybe there isn't. I will admit to strongly disliking the Bible ? but otherwise, I just don't see a lot of evidence of a "powerful" ? out there, though I do believe there are some forms of design in the universe. So I guess my mind is open to different possibilities, but I without a doubt think the Abrahamic ? is phony.
if the bolded ain't one of the most asinine narcissistic most prideful statements I have ever heard, I don't know what is!
You go create a universe ex nihilo if the heavens don't declare a "powerful ? "
You go create a sun ex nihilo if the sun doesn't keep you warm enough
You go create water ex nihilo since you can do better!
You go create an earth and hang it upon nothing since you have more power!
I'm waiting.......
Who created disease? Who created tsunamis, tornadoes, earthquakes, cancer, babies being born with no eyes, babies born with cerebral palsy? Water borne diseases? Did your ? create these things? If so, he's a giant ? up.
If your ? did NOT create these things, then your ? is still a little weakling because it should be destroying the force creating these things. If your ? is UNABLE to stop these things, then how can I call it a ? ? If your ? is UNWILLING to stop these things, then it very well could be a ? and an ? .
SO in other words because the world is not the peaceful idyllic place you think ? should make it be you reject him?? -
I'll bite.
I was raised into a Christian household. Hell, my dad became a minister, then ordained a reverend while I was a teenager. He's been pastor of the church across the street from my childhood home since '98. Before we came back to that church (cause he left it for about seven years), we were members of two other churches.
I never much liked or cared for church, but I was dragged there every Sunday, and most Wednesday nights, so I had to deal with it growing up. However, at the second church we joined, I saw just how shady and hypocritical the Christian faith was when the pastor of that church got indicted for fraud and embezzlement (amongst other shady things I saw). He ended up having to do Fed time for a few years, which is the reason my dad left and went back home.
A lot of people who know me will say I didn't really "become" Agnostic till I graduated from college, which I find 1) totally ignorant, 2) telling to me on how they REALLY feel about educated people (most who don't have a higher education are scared shitless of those who get one), and 3) furthest from the truth. My mom once said that school "made me too smart for the Bible." I find this funny since I learned ZERO about religion in school (other than the Gospel Choir had more hoes in it than the marching band), and pretty much everything about honing my critical and analytical thinking skills. I was already on my way out the Christian door upon graduating HS....my time in college really didn't help keep me there, or push me further away.
It's been 10 years since I graduated college, and I've been Agnostic for about eight of them. The things I experienced in my adult life simply led me to the conclusion that IF there's a higher power out there - and I fully believe that there is - this is not it. There's no real evidence to distinguish Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, or any one of the thousands of belief systems from "the true religion", and not one of them has been proven to be any more right than the other. Also, I'm not naive enough to overlook all the CONCRETE scientific evidence found that says the Earth itself is anything less than 100,000 years old, unlike most religions claim, when they say Earth was created no more than 15,000 years ago.
One basic argument I've seen time and time again was "why would you let other people sway your decision to leave the church?" The truth is: They never did, but I found it to be an extra point to mention that if ? is represented by his children on Earth, and some of his children have proven to be more hateful, wicked, and vengeful than I - a "non-believer" at this point - why shouldn't I look at that representation as a factor in whether I want to follow that religion?
I'm just forced to conclude that ALL religions are mostly served by people who had no real say in it, and that was taught it from the cradle up (mostly being forced to participate in it as children). It's really only till someone hits adulthood that they can determine whether that belief system is right for them. If I had to categorize myself, I'm pretty sure this makes me an Agnostic Theist.
Agnostic theist, that works for me too I think. I'm very willing to believe there is a higher power out there, but I question how powerful it is, and that's probably when the agnostic side comes out of me. My belief in a higher power is not strong, but it's there most of the time.
I'm also willing to believe that maybe there was a ? or gods out there at one point, and that they died off a long time ago. Or maybe they became much weaker to what they were, the way humans age and become weak with age. Who knows. -
Its a fallacy to say its up to the atheist to provide evidence that there is a ? . Why? Cause a edited book said there is a ? with no proof whatsoever? What other old books should we hold up to scientific examination? If a book about dragons was formed and had a religious following? There are thousands of old stories, the bible just happens to have a cult following.....Jesus wasn't a christian, Bhudda wasn't a Buddhist? Human beings are stupid....surprised 2pac doesn't have his own religion.
I'm neutral by the way I am open to an idea of intelligent design, or a transition "afterlife" but I am a biblical atheist.
You really have to ask yourself how smart you really are if you blindly believe in a book cause other people do and it seems normal -
Before we can question whether or not a ? or gods or any similar entity exists, we have to first question our concept of ? .
Then we have to question whether or not we possess the perception or tools to perceive a ? .
The limitations of our accepted tools of knowledge is for a 3d material universe.
So you cool with people making up their own concepts regardless of evidence? If it's just a question and nobody actually attempts to gain those tools (which we have step by step at an increasing pace regardless of the invisible goal post) then why come to such a specific conclusion and hold is as absolute when there could be an number of scenario? Regarding that scenario, it's nothing to point to a requirement that some one had to spin a top for this to pop off. Our intelligence only exist within the bounds of this universe because it's part of this universe. But what makes it so other worldly, or this universe so specific that it requires an intelligence?
Order and consistency require conscious intelligence.
Law requires intelligence. In order for there to be Law, there must be an establisher of that Law.NeighborhoodNomad. wrote: »Before we can question whether or not a ? or gods or any similar entity exists, we have to first question our concept of ? .
Then we have to question whether or not we possess the perception or tools to perceive a ? .
The limitations of our accepted tools of knowledge is for a 3d material universe.
Excellent statement. What is your concept of ? (s)?
gods are personal concepts not universal, i am ?
I Am ? . Indeed.
-
kingblaze84 wrote: »imgoingtoheavenru? wrote: »kingblaze84 wrote: »I have agnostic tendencies, though I often think there could be a higher power out there. And some days, I think maybe there isn't. I will admit to strongly disliking the Bible ? but otherwise, I just don't see a lot of evidence of a "powerful" ? out there, though I do believe there are some forms of design in the universe. So I guess my mind is open to different possibilities, but I without a doubt think the Abrahamic ? is phony.
if the bolded ain't one of the most asinine narcissistic most prideful statements I have ever heard, I don't know what is!
You go create a universe ex nihilo if the heavens don't declare a "powerful ? "
You go create a sun ex nihilo if the sun doesn't keep you warm enough
You go create water ex nihilo since you can do better!
You go create an earth and hang it upon nothing since you have more power!
I'm waiting.......
Who created disease? Who created tsunamis, tornadoes, earthquakes, cancer, babies being born with no eyes, babies born with cerebral palsy? Water borne diseases? Did your ? create these things? If so, he's a giant ? up.
If your ? did NOT create these things, then your ? is still a little weakling because it should be destroying the force creating these things. If your ? is UNABLE to stop these things, then how can I call it a ? ? If your ? is UNWILLING to stop these things, then it very well could be a ? and an ? .
SO in other words because the world is not the peaceful idyllic place you think ? should make it be you reject him??
Not necessarily. I would have a few questions for this "? ", before I reject it or not.
I've already rejected the phony Abrahamic ? , but if a "real" ? was to show up, I would absolutely be willing to listen to it and maybe accept it, assuming it answers my questions to my satisfaction.
-
kingblaze84 wrote: »imgoingtoheavenru? wrote: »kingblaze84 wrote: »I have agnostic tendencies, though I often think there could be a higher power out there. And some days, I think maybe there isn't. I will admit to strongly disliking the Bible ? but otherwise, I just don't see a lot of evidence of a "powerful" ? out there, though I do believe there are some forms of design in the universe. So I guess my mind is open to different possibilities, but I without a doubt think the Abrahamic ? is phony.
if the bolded ain't one of the most asinine narcissistic most prideful statements I have ever heard, I don't know what is!
You go create a universe ex nihilo if the heavens don't declare a "powerful ? "
You go create a sun ex nihilo if the sun doesn't keep you warm enough
You go create water ex nihilo since you can do better!
You go create an earth and hang it upon nothing since you have more power!
I'm waiting.......
Who created disease? Who created tsunamis, tornadoes, earthquakes, cancer, babies being born with no eyes, babies born with cerebral palsy? Water borne diseases? Did your ? create these things? If so, he's a giant ? up.
If your ? did NOT create these things, then your ? is still a little weakling because it should be destroying the force creating these things. If your ? is UNABLE to stop these things, then how can I call it a ? ? If your ? is UNWILLING to stop these things, then it very well could be a ? and an ? .
What is your concept or idea of ? ?
Are you at war with your concept of ? ?
Where do these concepts originate?
