Why do the God-haters persist?

[sealybobo]

Boss: Obviously something existed that wasn't physical because physical things did not have a universe in which to exist or a time space.

the existence of something that could not physically exist.

something existed before the Big Bang, and we can be certain it wasn't physical because physical did not yet exist.

Silly boob: Why does it have to be a god? And are you 100% sure we can be certain about that boss? Provide the scientific proof that science is in agreement that we can be certain of this.

I didn't say it had to be a god. I said it couldn't be physical because physical didn't exist yet. You need time and space for physical reality to exist and that wasn't here yet. We are certain that you need time and space for physical reality to exist because of e=mc2. So science is in agreement on this, we've known it for years.

So we know the universe began and will end, and we know that the universe expanding creates time or spacetime, which enables a physical reality perception to happen. Within this perception of physical reality, we have concocted "science" or the study of physical reality. Whenever we hear people demanding scientific explanations for the origin of the universe it is a bit like someone demanding their Excel document explain how their computer exists. It's beyond the capability of science, which only exists as part of a physical reality to study physical phenomenon.

Now... back to the God question... I have repeatedly stated that I am not Christian, and I don't believe God is a "deity" in accordance to any organized religious doctrine. Whenever I use the word "God", and I often do, it is referencing what I believe is Spiritual Energy or Spiritual Nature. It is NOT something humanistic with human characteristics. It is not something definable by physical parameters. Some will mistakenly refer to this as "supernatural" but I don't believe it is because it is part of nature itself, it created physical nature. Sometimes I may even call God "He" but again, I don't believe God has gender or is even an individually-definable entity. For the sake of common parlance and to have conversations with others about God, I will replace what I actually believe with these kinds of terms, including "God."

Redefining something as ‘god’ tells us nothing. To use the word ‘god’ implies a host of attributes (created man, cares about us, created the earth for us, is all knowing, all powerful intelligently designed this planet, etc.

If you don’t intend to apply those attributes, using the word is intentionally misleading.

 

[Montrovant]

Oh but it's because those are just kids, Boss! Well okay, let's take the thousands of nutty conspiracy theories out there. Do you see any evidence of people devoting every waking hour to go on message boards and forums to "inform" these people how they are crazy and misinformed? Nope. It doesn't matter. As long as you know something is too far-fetched to be true, you could care less what other people think. If someone wants to think Elvis is still alive on some remote island, what difference does that make to me? I might be inclined to casually comment that I don't believe it, but I am certainly not devoting the bulk of my energy and time online to categorically try and refute any inkling of thought pertaining to such a theory. And I am certainly not going to the extreme efforts to ridicule and insult the nuts who believe such theories. It's just not that important to me, nor to anyone else for that matter.

Just in case I never said this before (it's a very long thread and I don't recall if I pointed this out) there are a number of regulars to the conspiracy theory forum that would strongly disagree with you. They have claimed, on numerous occasions, that certain posters follow them around, hounding them, insulting them, and telling them their conspiracy theories are wrong.

 

[daws101]

Oh but it's because those are just kids, Boss! Well okay, let's take the thousands of nutty conspiracy theories out there. Do you see any evidence of people devoting every waking hour to go on message boards and forums to "inform" these people how they are crazy and misinformed? Nope. It doesn't matter. As long as you know something is too far-fetched to be true, you could care less what other people think. If someone wants to think Elvis is still alive on some remote island, what difference does that make to me? I might be inclined to casually comment that I don't believe it, but I am certainly not devoting the bulk of my energy and time online to categorically try and refute any inkling of thought pertaining to such a theory. And I am certainly not going to the extreme efforts to ridicule and insult the nuts who believe such theories. It's just not that important to me, nor to anyone else for that matter.

Just in case I never said this before (it's a very long thread and I don't recall if I pointed this out) there are a number of regulars to the conspiracy theory forum that would strongly disagree with you. They have claimed, on numerous occasions, that certain posters follow them around, hounding them, insulting them, and telling them their conspiracy theories are wrong.

not to worry, bossy likes all the attention.

 

[Hollie]

Sorry, but nope... not wrong. There could be no physical object before the Big Bang created the time space for a physical object to exist. Physical is a state which requires time to exist. Without time, nothing physical can exist or be real because there is no physical reality.

Nothing had to create God. Creation is something which applies to physical things. The spiritual isn't created, it doesn't exist physically so there is no need for it to be created. You're trying to apply physical standards to something spiritual and when I correct your error, you're screaming "special dispensation!" Your brain is unable to comprehend something beyond physical nature, even though you should rationally know that something must have created physical nature and it couldn't be physical.

You're not paying attention. Obviously something existed before the Big Bang and that something was a singularity.

And as expected, you continue to require special pleadings for your gods because you feel that supernaturalism and magic are except from the standards of reason and rationality.

As usual, boss has to invoke "special dispensations" for his argument -- i.e., one must assume as true the point that boss is trying to make, which is there is a supernatural cause behind all of this, to support the assertion that there is a supernatural cause behind all of this. Once again, begging the question already destroys the argument, because one must demonstrate the existence of the supernatural before one can appeal to it to supply a rationale for something to be in effect.

But hey, boss, why let facts and evidence cloud your decision making.

Obviously something existed that wasn't physical because physical things did not have a universe in which to exist or a time space. You keep yammering about "singularity" like you know what you're talking about, but you are an ignoramus. Singularity theorem posits the Big Bang began as singularity. This did not exist before the Big Bang, nor has it ever been theorized by any source I am familiar with. The correct answer from a science perspective is, we don't know what existed before the Big Bang because science can only deal with physical nature, which didn't yet exist. What we know is, whatever existed couldn't be physical.

It's just a little cray-cray to be asking me to demonstrate the physical existence of something that could not physically exist. As you said, it's obvious something existed before the Big Bang, and we can be certain it wasn't physical because physical did not yet exist.

Why is it you insist "something existed that wasn't physical because physical things did not have a universe in which to exist or a time space."

I understand you want to posit your gawds were the "something existed that wasn't physical", but you've made no case for that.

 

[daws101]

You're not paying attention. Obviously something existed before the Big Bang and that something was a singularity.

And as expected, you continue to require special pleadings for your gods because you feel that supernaturalism and magic are except from the standards of reason and rationality.

As usual, boss has to invoke "special dispensations" for his argument -- i.e., one must assume as true the point that boss is trying to make, which is there is a supernatural cause behind all of this, to support the assertion that there is a supernatural cause behind all of this. Once again, begging the question already destroys the argument, because one must demonstrate the existence of the supernatural before one can appeal to it to supply a rationale for something to be in effect.

But hey, boss, why let facts and evidence cloud your decision making.

Obviously something existed that wasn't physical because physical things did not have a universe in which to exist or a time space. You keep yammering about "singularity" like you know what you're talking about, but you are an ignoramus. Singularity theorem posits the Big Bang began as singularity. This did not exist before the Big Bang, nor has it ever been theorized by any source I am familiar with. The correct answer from a science perspective is, we don't know what existed before the Big Bang because science can only deal with physical nature, which didn't yet exist. What we know is, whatever existed couldn't be physical.

It's just a little cray-cray to be asking me to demonstrate the physical existence of something that could not physically exist. As you said, it's obvious something existed before the Big Bang, and we can be certain it wasn't physical because physical did not yet exist.

Why is it you insist "something existed that wasn't physical because physical things did not have a universe in which to exist or a time space."

I understand you want to posit your gawds were the "something existed that wasn't physical", but you've made no case for that.

bossy has a hard time with concepts like every thing has a physical component ..

 

[Youwerecreated]

Let me be more precise about abandoning God. Abandoning the one true God, not the many false gods that have been created by civilizations. The god of this system is not the one true God but the god satan who set up and use civilizations for his own evil agenda.

there is no evidence for one true god or many gods. you as always are speaking from self-imposed ignorance...

You say self imposed ignorance when you have no explanation as to how life came in to existence.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Daws by the way were you banned or did you finally pay your internet bill ?

 

[daws101]

Let me be more precise about abandoning God. Abandoning the one true God, not the many false gods that have been created by civilizations. The god of this system is not the one true God but the god satan who set up and use civilizations for his own evil agenda.

there is no evidence for one true god or many gods. you as always are speaking from self-imposed ignorance...

You say self imposed ignorance when you have no explanation as to how life came in to existence.

false! I and many others have explained it to you.

Atheists don't define themselves by having answers to this question, so why ask.
Mainstream science is the body of knowledge that addresses such questions, however there are no conclusive answers to this question currently.

Mainstream science makes NO CLAIMS about where life originated, indeed it makes no claims about anything, as it only describes the natural world. However what it does describe is VERIFIABLE..

Offering a "god of the gaps" argument where the scientific knowledge is as yet undiscovered is the argument of an infantile intellect and wilful scientific illiteracy, however these gaps are shrinking daily as science marches ever forward, leaving behind your stagnant bronze age religious dogmas where they belong, in ancient history..

Only you thumpers have an explanation and it's false....

Your argument is scientifically illiterate, ill informed, infantile and dishonest.

 

[sealybobo]

Let me be more precise about abandoning God. Abandoning the one true God, not the many false gods that have been created by civilizations. The god of this system is not the one true God but the god satan who set up and use civilizations for his own evil agenda.

there is no evidence for one true god or many gods. you as always are speaking from self-imposed ignorance...

You say self imposed ignorance when you have no explanation as to how life came in to existence.

We may not know how it started but we know how life here on earth started and when. Science figured it out. Until science we thought god waved his hand and built the earth first and the sun revolved around the earth and the earth was flat and...

Basically we came up with god when we didn't know shit.

What we do know is the adam and eve, noah, mosus and Jesus stories are not to be taken literally but that's exactly what people do. Silly don't you think?

 

[Boss]

I showed you evidence we'd be better off without god: Atheism is correlated with better scientific literacy, lower poverty rates, higher literacy rates, higher average incomes, less violence, lower divorce rates, lower teen pregnancy rates, lower STD infection rates, lower crime rates and lower homicide rates.

Uhm... no, you showed me some stats from countries with a supposedly high number of Atheists among the population. They were still predominately spiritual nations. You can't claim a nation is "Atheist" because 20% of the people claim to be atheist. Until you have a majority Atheist nation to cite, you should just keep your mouth closed and not make such bold claims.

 

[Boss]

You're not paying attention. Obviously something existed before the Big Bang and that something was a singularity.

And as expected, you continue to require special pleadings for your gods because you feel that supernaturalism and magic are except from the standards of reason and rationality.

As usual, boss has to invoke "special dispensations" for his argument -- i.e., one must assume as true the point that boss is trying to make, which is there is a supernatural cause behind all of this, to support the assertion that there is a supernatural cause behind all of this. Once again, begging the question already destroys the argument, because one must demonstrate the existence of the supernatural before one can appeal to it to supply a rationale for something to be in effect.

But hey, boss, why let facts and evidence cloud your decision making.

Obviously something existed that wasn't physical because physical things did not have a universe in which to exist or a time space. You keep yammering about "singularity" like you know what you're talking about, but you are an ignoramus. Singularity theorem posits the Big Bang began as singularity. This did not exist before the Big Bang, nor has it ever been theorized by any source I am familiar with. The correct answer from a science perspective is, we don't know what existed before the Big Bang because science can only deal with physical nature, which didn't yet exist. What we know is, whatever existed couldn't be physical.

It's just a little cray-cray to be asking me to demonstrate the physical existence of something that could not physically exist. As you said, it's obvious something existed before the Big Bang, and we can be certain it wasn't physical because physical did not yet exist.

Why is it you insist "something existed that wasn't physical because physical things did not have a universe in which to exist or a time space."

I understand you want to posit your gawds were the "something existed that wasn't physical", but you've made no case for that.

Well because we know what creates physical reality is time and space for physical reality to exist, and we know this is created by the universe expanding because of e=mc2. Before the universe began expanding, there was no physical existence of any kind, it's impossible. If there was no physical nature, the only force which could have created the universe is spiritual. Unless there is some force even greater than spiritual nature that we don't know about yet.... that's also a possibility. What is not possible is for physical nature to create itself.

 

[Montrovant]

Obviously something existed that wasn't physical because physical things did not have a universe in which to exist or a time space. You keep yammering about "singularity" like you know what you're talking about, but you are an ignoramus. Singularity theorem posits the Big Bang began as singularity. This did not exist before the Big Bang, nor has it ever been theorized by any source I am familiar with. The correct answer from a science perspective is, we don't know what existed before the Big Bang because science can only deal with physical nature, which didn't yet exist. What we know is, whatever existed couldn't be physical.

It's just a little cray-cray to be asking me to demonstrate the physical existence of something that could not physically exist. As you said, it's obvious something existed before the Big Bang, and we can be certain it wasn't physical because physical did not yet exist.

Why is it you insist "something existed that wasn't physical because physical things did not have a universe in which to exist or a time space."

I understand you want to posit your gawds were the "something existed that wasn't physical", but you've made no case for that.

Well because we know what creates physical reality is time and space for physical reality to exist, and we know this is created by the universe expanding because of e=mc2. Before the universe began expanding, there was no physical existence of any kind, it's impossible. If there was no physical nature, the only force which could have created the universe is spiritual. Unless there is some force even greater than spiritual nature that we don't know about yet.... that's also a possibility. What is not possible is for physical nature to create itself.

My understanding is that the Big Bang theory posits the universe coming from a singularity, something with infinite density but zero volume. I don't recall seeing that the singularity is not supposed to be physical; all the laws of physics, particularly relativity, may not apply, but that doesn't necessarily equate to a non-physical existence.

 

[Youwerecreated]

there is no evidence for one true god or many gods. you as always are speaking from self-imposed ignorance...

You say self imposed ignorance when you have no explanation as to how life came in to existence.

false! I and many others have explained it to you.

Atheists don't define themselves by having answers to this question, so why ask.
Mainstream science is the body of knowledge that addresses such questions, however there are no conclusive answers to this question currently.

Mainstream science makes NO CLAIMS about where life originated, indeed it makes no claims about anything, as it only describes the natural world. However what it does describe is VERIFIABLE..

Offering a "god of the gaps" argument where the scientific knowledge is as yet undiscovered is the argument of an infantile intellect and wilful scientific illiteracy, however these gaps are shrinking daily as science marches ever forward, leaving behind your stagnant bronze age religious dogmas where they belong, in ancient history..

Only you thumpers have an explanation and it's false....

Your argument is scientifically illiterate, ill informed, infantile and dishonest.

But daws you say my views are based on self imposed ignorance. I can assume because looking at nature that the evidence shows deliberate design to everything's existence but you on the other hand, want to think no designer was needed defying known laws and have no clue as how we came in to existence,ignoring the mathematical impossibility that a non-directed natural process produced all we see and giving us everything from protection mechanisms,a brain to reason,the organs and everything else required for life.

 

[Hollie]

You say self imposed ignorance when you have no explanation as to how life came in to existence.

false! I and many others have explained it to you.

Atheists don't define themselves by having answers to this question, so why ask.
Mainstream science is the body of knowledge that addresses such questions, however there are no conclusive answers to this question currently.

Mainstream science makes NO CLAIMS about where life originated, indeed it makes no claims about anything, as it only describes the natural world. However what it does describe is VERIFIABLE..

Offering a "god of the gaps" argument where the scientific knowledge is as yet undiscovered is the argument of an infantile intellect and wilful scientific illiteracy, however these gaps are shrinking daily as science marches ever forward, leaving behind your stagnant bronze age religious dogmas where they belong, in ancient history..

Only you thumpers have an explanation and it's false....

Your argument is scientifically illiterate, ill informed, infantile and dishonest.

But daws you say my views are based on self imposed ignorance. I can assume because looking at nature that the evidence shows deliberate design to everything's existence but you on the other hand, want to think no designer was needed defying known laws and have no clue as how we came in to existence,ignoring the mathematical impossibility that a non-directed natural process produced all we see and giving us everything from protection mechanisms,a brain to reason,the organs and everything else required for life.

Just plain ignorance at its worst.

1. There is no evidence that shows design in nature.

2. There no such thing as a "mathematical impossibility that a non-directed natural process ..."

Posting these absurdities you steal from Harun Yahya is a waste of bandwidth.

 

[HUGGY]

Obviously something existed that wasn't physical because physical things did not have a universe in which to exist or a time space. You keep yammering about "singularity" like you know what you're talking about, but you are an ignoramus. Singularity theorem posits the Big Bang began as singularity. This did not exist before the Big Bang, nor has it ever been theorized by any source I am familiar with. The correct answer from a science perspective is, we don't know what existed before the Big Bang because science can only deal with physical nature, which didn't yet exist. What we know is, whatever existed couldn't be physical.

It's just a little cray-cray to be asking me to demonstrate the physical existence of something that could not physically exist. As you said, it's obvious something existed before the Big Bang, and we can be certain it wasn't physical because physical did not yet exist.

Why is it you insist "something existed that wasn't physical because physical things did not have a universe in which to exist or a time space."

I understand you want to posit your gawds were the "something existed that wasn't physical", but you've made no case for that.

Well because we know what creates physical reality is time and space for physical reality to exist, and we know this is created by the universe expanding because of e=mc2. Before the universe began expanding, there was no physical existence of any kind, it's impossible. If there was no physical nature, the only force which could have created the universe is spiritual. Unless there is some force even greater than spiritual nature that we don't know about yet.... that's also a possibility. What is not possible is for physical nature to create itself.

That is a silly statement. You persist in throwing the term "create" around like everything came from nothing. Worse... you add in some spiritual element from whence this nothing was assembled like a cosmic clock maker was seperate from the nothingness and allowed/demanded all the stuff of the universe to spring forth... with the apparent motive to build a home for homo sapiens.

One one the many problems with your theory is that creation begets creation in an endless cycle of chicken and egg demanding an answer to the inevitable questions as to where did your god/spirit come from and the creator of that god/spirit and on and on...

Glib statements about WHEN time started don't help your theory. We don't know when the clock started. We may have theories about WHEN this universe's clock started but obviously there was something that existed to have evolved into a big bang.

What we do know about matter is that the cosmos is almost entirely made up of nearly infinite space between particles and removing all of the space explains the size of the cosmos before the great expansion and apparent volume we see at this point in the configuration of matter.

From what we DO know by observing some parts of the universe, specifically black holes, a lot of "stuff" can be condensed into relatively small places. That doesn't mean the stuff swallowed into a black hole is GONE or has evaporated into nothingness requiring some magical creature to come along and make the stuff squished into a black hole into something you would recognise.

It might be helpfull to keep in mind that we are limited beings. It isn't so much that your estimated power of spirituality is great but in truth OUR powers are weak.

Revisiting my example of the black hole why isn't it more probable that in a previous incarnation of OUR universe we can speculate that black holes ate everything until there was nothing left but one super black hole with nothing left to devour and at the point of singularity and all the space was gone the whole shebang reversed AKA the Big Bang and the spaces between the particles was again formed in the expansion and so on and so forth until once again the expansion reaches a point of reversal and eventually all the particles are crushed into a small ball and the proccess continues.

What I find more believable than a creator is getting over the concept of a start and an end to the universe. This whole idea of a creator is juvenile. It is purely a human need. All life "creates" offspring so OBVIOUSLY EVERYTHING MUST be modeled after our example of procreation.

Poppycock.

 

[sealybobo]

You say self imposed ignorance when you have no explanation as to how life came in to existence.

false! I and many others have explained it to you.

Atheists don't define themselves by having answers to this question, so why ask.
Mainstream science is the body of knowledge that addresses such questions, however there are no conclusive answers to this question currently.

Mainstream science makes NO CLAIMS about where life originated, indeed it makes no claims about anything, as it only describes the natural world. However what it does describe is VERIFIABLE..

Offering a "god of the gaps" argument where the scientific knowledge is as yet undiscovered is the argument of an infantile intellect and wilful scientific illiteracy, however these gaps are shrinking daily as science marches ever forward, leaving behind your stagnant bronze age religious dogmas where they belong, in ancient history..

Only you thumpers have an explanation and it's false....

Your argument is scientifically illiterate, ill informed, infantile and dishonest.

But daws you say my views are based on self imposed ignorance. I can assume because looking at nature that the evidence shows deliberate design to everything's existence but you on the other hand, want to think no designer was needed defying known laws and have no clue as how we came in to existence,ignoring the mathematical impossibility that a non-directed natural process produced all we see and giving us everything from protection mechanisms,a brain to reason,the organs and everything else required for life.

Atheists/scientists who also happen to be scientists have debated this issue and what you are saying may make sense in your own head but whatever you just said is not proof of a god.

The First Cause Argument, or Cosmological Argument, is internally contradictory and raises the following questions: Who or what created god?, Why should a hypothetical ‘cause’ have any of the common attributes of a god?, Why is the ‘cause’ a specific god?, Why can’t the universe be causeless too? and, most importantly, Why rule out all other possible explanations?

It is fundamentally a ‘god of the gaps’ approach. Our current lack of understanding concerning the Universe’s origins does not automatically mean ‘god’ holds any explanatory value. Metaphysical and theistic speculation are not justified or correct simply because we lack a comprehensive scientific model. Uncertainty is the most valid position and one can honestly say “We just don’t know yet”.

I can see Boss doing a bong hit and being so sure his theory is correct and you know what? It might be. He might actually be right. How many great minds were laughed at and doubted until one day, long after they died someone proves their theory right.

Then he'll be able to rest in piece. Actually it does him no good when he's dead. He's not a ghost like Patrick Swazy. He's not an angel watching from heaven. He's actually rotting in pieces in the earth. Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. It's life. Enjoy it while you can. You only live once, PROBABLY. But to tell me to believe in the Jesus cult made up by 11 guys or go to hell?

 

[sealybobo]

I want to start a thread that gets the All you have to do is believe in Jesus Christians arguing with the you'll go to hell if you are gay or jack off Christians.

Or get the people who take the bible literally arguing with the ones that don't.

 

[sealybobo]

We see them here everyday, interjecting their hate-filled insultuous attacks on the religious, mocking and ridiculing to a bizarre extreme, anything and everything to do with God. They largely profess to be "Atheists" although some, as if to denote a hint of reluctance to go quite that far, will claim agnosticism instead. Best play it safe if we're dealing with a super-force who can send you to the pits of hell for all eternity, eh? But they have a dirty little secret they don't want any of us to know. They are not, in fact, Atheists or agnostic.

True Atheists have absolutely no inclination to attack people who profess religious belief. If anything, they are amused by the "believers" and find them a bit of a novelty. Much like an adult who encounters a child believing in Santa or the Easter Bunny. There is no harm to the adult in such beliefs, the adult knows these are not real entities, and it's simply an amusement to them. In fact, they may even 'play along' with the idea, just in the name of fun. What does it hurt? No, you don't see hoards of smart-assed punks at the mall where Santa visits, ridiculing and belittling the people standing in line to see him. Message boards aren't clogged up with degenerate misfits decrying the belief of a giant bunny who brings candy and hides eggs, because it doesn't really matter to anyone that some people entertain this notion.

Oh but it's because those are just kids, Boss! Well okay, let's take the thousands of nutty conspiracy theories out there. Do you see any evidence of people devoting every waking hour to go on message boards and forums to "inform" these people how they are crazy and misinformed? Nope. It doesn't matter. As long as you know something is too far-fetched to be true, you could care less what other people think. If someone wants to think Elvis is still alive on some remote island, what difference does that make to me? I might be inclined to casually comment that I don't believe it, but I am certainly not devoting the bulk of my energy and time online to categorically try and refute any inkling of thought pertaining to such a theory. And I am certainly not going to the extreme efforts to ridicule and insult the nuts who believe such theories. It's just not that important to me, nor to anyone else for that matter.

But with the God-haters and God, things are quite different. Although they claim to be Atheists or agnostics, my suspicion is they are anything but. It appears they are devout believers in God, who fully understand the power of God and how much God influences others who believe in Him. To put it in simple terms, they fear God. They are afraid if they do not stand up and fight God with all their might, God may become a bigger influence and that wouldn't be good for them, for whatever reason.

Most of the time, these reasons center around that person's life choices. They have totally abandoned the God they very much believe in, so they can be unaccountable for their moral behaviors. As long as there is "no god" to judge them, they can do whatever they please and there are no consequences. It's important that we understand, any time someone is doing something immoral or wrong, they had rather have company. This provides a codependency, a way they can somehow justify their behavior to themselves.

So this is why the God-haters persist on message boards and forums, to 'recruit' people over to their way of thinking. They believe they can ridicule and cajole people into being ashamed of their beliefs and those people will ultimately join their faction. If nothing else, it is 'therapeutic' for them to vent their anger and vitriol toward the God they know is real, and they are almost certain to meet up with others who are doing the same thing.

Lets start over, from the beginning. Let me see if Boss has evolved at all. Oh, it looks like he has. This post says Boss believes if you don't believe you'll go to hell. He said it himself. Now today he claims not to be a christian but still someone, without any proof still believes there must be a god. Despite all the people who have tried to explain it to him that he is just putting god in place of where he should be saying I DON'T KNOW. Instead he argues he knows it must be god. And what proof does he have? Our ignorant unevolved primative superstitious ancestors made it up. Because those apes believed in/made up god, that is his solid Parry Mason PROOF of god.

But at least he's no longer talking like Gismys. When he started this that was his position. Says it right above.

And it seems you are the one playing it safe. You would feel too much guilt/shame saying out loud THERE IS NO GOD. I take all emotion out of it when I am trying to figure out what is real and what is not. You need to be able to do that. Look at the facts. There probably is no god. 99.999% But who knows so I'm an agnostic atheist. I don't know everything but I do know man probably made up god, not the other way around. Deal with it.

Also, you said true atheists have no reason??? Are you fucking kidding me you stupid little bitch? Didn't you see recently that American's would rather vote for a cheating pot smoker than they would an atheist? I believe people who have been long time atheists have just figured why bother. But I think differently. I think a little push in the right direction might help speed up the process. Religion ='s Ignorance. I know you think it does a lot of good but we can do better without it. I'm agnostic about that comment too actually. I believe that is right but who knows. Would society break down into lawlessness without Jesus or Mohammad? Somehow I doubt it. The rich use religion to keep the poor and middle class down. Without it we'll all do better. Look at how Jesus George Bush fucked up. Now look at how put your cigar up Monica's pussy Bill did. God didn't help poor george, but he did speak to him. Remember?

 

[Hollie]

Obviously something existed that wasn't physical because physical things did not have a universe in which to exist or a time space. You keep yammering about "singularity" like you know what you're talking about, but you are an ignoramus. Singularity theorem posits the Big Bang began as singularity. This did not exist before the Big Bang, nor has it ever been theorized by any source I am familiar with. The correct answer from a science perspective is, we don't know what existed before the Big Bang because science can only deal with physical nature, which didn't yet exist. What we know is, whatever existed couldn't be physical.

It's just a little cray-cray to be asking me to demonstrate the physical existence of something that could not physically exist. As you said, it's obvious something existed before the Big Bang, and we can be certain it wasn't physical because physical did not yet exist.

Why is it you insist "something existed that wasn't physical because physical things did not have a universe in which to exist or a time space."

I understand you want to posit your gawds were the "something existed that wasn't physical", but you've made no case for that.

Well because we know what creates physical reality is time and space for physical reality to exist, and we know this is created by the universe expanding because of e=mc2. Before the universe began expanding, there was no physical existence of any kind, it's impossible. If there was no physical nature, the only force which could have created the universe is spiritual. Unless there is some force even greater than spiritual nature that we don't know about yet.... that's also a possibility. What is not possible is for physical nature to create itself.

Yet, you grant special dispensation to your gods for creating themselves, (an endless hierarchy of super gods creating subordinate gods), or your gods get a special dispensation for being created by nothing.

 

[sealybobo]

I showed you evidence we'd be better off without god: Atheism is correlated with better scientific literacy, lower poverty rates, higher literacy rates, higher average incomes, less violence, lower divorce rates, lower teen pregnancy rates, lower STD infection rates, lower crime rates and lower homicide rates.

Uhm... no, you showed me some stats from countries with a supposedly high number of Atheists among the population. They were still predominately spiritual nations. You can't claim a nation is "Atheist" because 20% of the people claim to be atheist. Until you have a majority Atheist nation to cite, you should just keep your mouth closed and not make such bold claims.

Yea but countries with less religion do better than countries with more religion. That's the only point I tried to make here.

PS. I want to add to my comment on your insane original post. First off let me say based on the original post, you think no different than Gismys. The only difference is she doesn't deny jesus like you. You seem to think that is ok but denying any god will send you to hell. So to you Muslims and Jews are Mormons are all safe. Got it. Retard.

Come on boss. We fear god? Really? You think I'd fuck with a god if I thought for a minute there was one? Even if there is one, he isn't watching you. That's man's ego/arrogance nothing more. Made in our image. HA!

We are afraid god will become bigger. You are right there. We think god keeps poor and stupid people down. That's why the kings and pharohs used it and that's why the GOP uses it today. Keep god out of government please. Make room for atheist senators and one day a president who doesn't believe in fairy tales. And notice we don't scream this to you at the office. Seems the only place we can vent is USMB. God bless the internet.

You said "Most of the time, these reasons center around that person's life choices." So not true. I'm a good guy, don't steal, cheat, lie any more or less than any christian or muslim. And I certainly don't do bad things and just want to believe that there are no consequences because I believe in Karma. I don't worry about being punished in the afterlife. I worry about being paid back now in this life. I don't need a god or big brother watching over me 24/7. Do you?

Know why we stopped believing in gods? First of all, we grew up. Second of all, just look at you people who believe in god. You're so ignorant/fucked up.

Yes we are trying to recruit just like your cults do. Are you afraid of us? And we are not mad. We are just passionate. It took a passionate atheist to wake me up. After 42 years of being brainwashed it wasn't easy but My Eyes Have Seen The GLORY of the fact there is no lord.