Atheism

when you have the science, argue the science
when you have facts argue the facts..
when you are a troll you make a lot of noise and change the subject after you get caught spewing detritus.

when you argue for science where there is non.
when you argue for facts when there are non.
when you are a troll and you make a lot of noise and change the subject after you get caught spewing detritus

you're gonna be Jem.
 
nice try stu... here is the science.... again.

I have provided videos and dozens of scientists explaining the science to you.


the observation the universe is extremely fine tuned is the science.
The explanation that there is a Tuner or a Multiverse is the debate.

http://discovermagazine.com/2008/dec/10-sciences-alternative-to-an-intelligent-creator\

What About God?
....

If the multiverse is the final stage of the Copernican revolution, with our universe but a speck in an infinite megacosmos, where does humanity fit in? If the life-friendly fine-tuning of our universe is just a chance occurrence, something that inevitably arises in an endless array of universes, is there any need for a fine-tuner—for a god?

“I don’t think that the multiverse idea destroys the possibility of an intelligent, benevolent creator,” Weinberg says. “What it does is remove one of the arguments for it, just as Darwin’s theory of evolution made it unnecessary to appeal to a benevolent designer to understand how life developed with such remarkable abilities to survive and breed.”

On the other hand, if there is no multiverse, where does that leave physicists? “If there is only one universe,” Carr says, “you might have to have a fine-tuner. If you don’t want God, you’d better have a multiverse.”

As for Linde, he is especially interested in the mystery of consciousness and has speculated that consciousness may be a fundamental component of the universe, much like space and time. He wonders whether the physical universe, its laws, and conscious observers might form an integrated whole. A complete description of reality, he says, could require all three of those components, which he posits emerged simultaneously. “Without someone observing the universe,” he says, “the universe is actually dead.”

Yet for all of his boldness, Linde hesitates when I ask whether he truly believes that the multiverse idea will one day be as well established as Newton’s law of gravity and the Big Bang. “I do not want to predict the future,” he answers. “I once predicted my own future. I had a very firm prediction. I knew that I was going to die in the hospital at the Academy of Sciences in Moscow near where I worked. I would go there for all my physical examinations. Once, when I had an ulcer, I was lying there in bed, thinking I knew this was the place where I was going to die. Why? Because I knew I would always be living in Russia. Moscow was the only place in Russia where I could do physics. This was the only hospital for the Academy of Sciences, and so on. It was quite completely predictable.
 
Yes, atheist for 35 years or so now. I was raised as a Catholic. The religion asked me to believe in all sorts of invisible things and unprovable dogmas, mostly handed down by old white men. I was questioning this well before there were any child molestation cases being talked about. It just did not make sense to me--still doesn't. Even if I were religious in some way, I could never be a Catholic. As a gynecologist and a woman, I could never accept a religion that, in my estimation, systematizes subjugation of women.

Yet, I have no interest in converting others to my way of thinking. I don't care what other people believe, as long as they don't try to make me believe it. Their beliefs are kind of scary in a few cases, but mostly harmless, and I don't think you can stop people from having them. They want the world to be ordered, and to be fair. It comes from some primitive time when a few days of bad weather could ruin the harvest and beget starvation. If there is "justice" and retribution and reward, then things will be all right in the end. People don't want to believe that there is no inherent fairness and that the only true order of unfortunate things that befall us is something along the lines of "shit happens." If all you believe is that shit happens, then you have to accept that even worse shit can happen next time. People understandably don't want to swallow that. Fantasies are more fun than the truth. Star Wars is outselling documentaries. I'd like to believe those fantasies, just as religious people do. It seems so comforting. But I just can't buy them.

I'm eternally sick of people asking me to explain myself. I simply respond by asking them to first explain their belief in something that no one can see or hear, and for which there is no evidence or proof. These same reasonable-seeming people are not asking me why I do not believe in ghosts, astrology, werewolves, leprechauns, etc., nor do they believe in those things themselves. What's the difference between those things and religion?

I was so charmed by Chris Matthews' short editorial a couple of years ago. He basically stated that based on history, over time, liberalism always wins. I believe he meant liberalism not as "the left" but in a figurative sense; that is, freedom of thought, belief, and action, increasing recognition of human rights, and so forth. At least people are talking about atheism now. It used to be people would think you were a monster if you said you were atheist.

Thank you for starting this thread.
 
It used to be people would think you were a monster if you said you were atheist.

hrmkf.jpg
 
I was so charmed by Chris Matthews' short editorial a couple of years ago. He basically stated that based on history, over time, liberalism always wins. I believe he meant liberalism not as "the left" but in a figurative sense; that is, freedom of thought, belief, and action, increasing recognition of human rights, and so forth. At least people are talking about atheism now. It used to be people would think you were a monster if you said you were atheist.

imo, a serious and scientific way to reject rationally all forms of God concept/ perception/ existence would most often go through a reasonably longtime searching, especially for the ones with strong religious background previously.

http://www.elitetrader.com/et/index...idence-the-universe-was-created.300707/page-5

imo, Jesus was not much difference when comparing today's atheists.

I can see that he and his followers mainly believed in the natural GOD, from the Stoicism perspective.

A God consists all things and everything in the (multi)universe. All human beings including Jesus is part of the GOD!

A GOD encompasses/incorporates various forms of Gods that were worshiped by various religions from various cultures.

That has been a truly simple concept/perception/instinct from the mind of all human beings! Without requiring any reading, studying, intelligence, etc. to capture this GOD feeling and recognition!

An atheist does not believe any conventional religious God concept due to various reasons and rejecting all the attributes of God from all religious, basically.

However, when considering a GOD concept being a scientific approach one based on evidence/logic/rationality, then the rejection by atheists would become invalid! As at the same time, an atheist becomes a fervent believer and fundamentalist of "No God"! That would be no difference between other believers of religions!

One of his 'interesting' parable was like that, believers (elder son) are not truly believers, while non-believers are actually believers (younger son)!

Of course, the scientists are basically believers of sciences, dynamically based on their research approaches and theories. Rather than a fixed set of outdated books, that were based on verbal stories from their old, very old, antecedents - without any proven evidence! Simple because the uneducated majority trust their leaders who were often a bit of better intelligence and education, especially religiously.

Jesus set an example to today's atheists, as well as the secular world! In an analytical and logical/rational sense! (He was a rational thinker! On Sundays, people can do anything just like on everyday!) Obviously he also wished/wanted the religious believers to do the same, especially his followers/students!

(Think about what some believers (front runners) today would think and talk about non-believers (rear walkers)!)

Jesus was a visionary marketer/promoter/pioneer of equality (everyone is a son of God. Not just believers!) and liberty (salvation) for every individuals, no matter believers or non-believers of any religions! He said, Rains are for All! Not only for just a few (good men)!

A God concept Jesus himself believed has no physical form, no boundaries/limitations, for all human beings - poor by suppression/ sicked by birth/ sinned by morality standards, etc.

Several of Jesus' parables repeatedly implied the above meaning and reality! Spiritually and physically speaking!

As he also specifically mentioned probably only few/some would understand the actual/implied (deeper) meaning of his parables (eternity? heaven?)!

Just another 2 cents!


http://www.elitetrader.com/et/index.php?threads/atheism.300055/page-19#post-4295849
 
The Dark Ages weren’t as dark as most people assume, so to speak…in fact, the darkest of all ages was the 20th century, when governments murdered more people than in all of the rest of history combined – all for the “greater good”!

As an aside to this, what ended the brief period of economic liberty that followed on the heels of the Western Roman Empire’s collapse? Charlemagne – the first medieval central planner, who at the synod of Aachen in AD 789 and at the Council of Nijmegen in AD 806 introduced a “usury ban”, price controls, and a “ban on speculation”. In short, as soon as a new central power arose in Europe, it was all over with leaving people alone to do their thing in peace.



charlemagne-napoleon-ecole-france-allemagne-2381578-jpg_1579220.jpg
Medieval central planner Charlemagne. As soon as the first emperor after the fall of West Rome was firmly ensconced in power, he significantly curtailed the economic freedom people had enjoyed over the previous three centuries (erroneously dubbed the “Dark Ages”). A prime example for why big centralized states are really bad for the common man.
 
Back
Top