Why do the God-haters persist?

[Third Party]

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.

I don't think people hate God-I think they hate people who push their beliefs in God on them.

You do realize that you voluntarily came to a religious forum and chose to discuss the existence of God, right?

No, I choose to share my thoughts.

 

[ding]

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.

I don't think people hate God-I think they hate people who push their beliefs in God on them.

You do realize that you voluntarily came to a religious forum and chose to discuss the existence of God, right?

No, I choose to share my thoughts.

Right, so no one here is forcing anything upon you. We are doing the same exact thing.

 

[Third Party]

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.

I don't think people hate God-I think they hate people who push their beliefs in God on them.

You do realize that you voluntarily came to a religious forum and chose to discuss the existence of God, right?

No, I choose to share my thoughts.

Right, so no one here is forcing anything upon you. We are doing the same exact thing.

I never said you were forcing me

 

[toobfreak]

Why do the God-haters persist?

Getting back to the actual OP's question, I think it can be answered thusly:

1. There are more than a few devout Christians (I've seen many here) who absolutely shove their beliefs and faith down other people's throat! Like it was a calling of theirs. I fully support each person to make that choice for THEMSELVES.
2. Probably as a result of #1, a lot of atheists feel the need to adamantly DENY God. Worse, they put down those who do believe as being silly and backward. Maybe because some act that way.
   
3. The truth always lies in the middle. I don't pretend to have all the answers but have had powerful experiences that absolutely convinced me of a higher intelligence and all-encompassing force behind the universe. But I can never prove that to anyone, theists should respect other's choice not to believe and atheists should remember that no matter how strongly their beliefs, they can't prove God DOESN'T exist either, just maybe not "necessary" in their world view.

People ought to leave it at that and quit trying to be "right" in an argument or to "convert" or prove to the other side something they never can. If you have experienced God, you have no doubts and if you haven't, nothing can ever convince you otherwise. If the theists are indeed right, then there is a purpose and an intelligent plan to both the universe and life. But if the atheists are right, life and the universe are one big accident coming from random collisions of dust with no higher purpose or plan and morality is relative. You decide.

 

[edthecynic]

And thank you for admitting Energy created space/time.

The existence of energy creates space and time so technically what created energy created space and time.

energy cannot be created nor destroyed.

 

[ding]

And thank you for admitting Energy created space/time.

The existence of energy creates space and time so technically what created energy created space and time.

energy cannot be created nor destroyed.

No shit. But it can have a beginning and useable energy can become unusable energy of the system.

Inflation Theory, the First Law of Thermodynamics and quantum mechanics tells us that it is possible for matter to have a beginning. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.

 

[edthecynic]

Prove it.
The only thing PROVEN to be eternal is ENERGY!

And eventually equilibrates which we don't see.

Not to mention that matter and energy cannot exist outside of space and time without creating space and time.

Equilibrium violates the Third Law of Thermodynamics.
And thank you for admitting Energy created space/time.

Not this again.

YOU brought YOUR pontification up, did you really expect it to go unchallenged afterwards???

It's a red herring that has no relation to entropy. Specifically how useable energy becomes unusable to the system.

But you go right ahead and argue that objects don't equilibrate in the universe.

why would I argue YOUR stupid Straw Man?
While objects within the universe can equilibrate, the UNIVERSE cannot equilibrate!

 

[ding]

And eventually equilibrates which we don't see.

Not to mention that matter and energy cannot exist outside of space and time without creating space and time.

Equilibrium violates the Third Law of Thermodynamics.
And thank you for admitting Energy created space/time.

Not this again.

YOU brought YOUR pontification up, did you really expect it to go unchallenged afterwards???

It's a red herring that has no relation to entropy. Specifically how useable energy becomes unusable to the system.

But you go right ahead and argue that objects don't equilibrate in the universe.

why would I argue YOUR stupid Straw Man?
While objects within the universe can equilibrate, the UNIVERSE cannot equilibrate!

You are going to make semantics argument. Good Lord, you are getting desperate.

 

[edthecynic]

And thank you for admitting Energy created space/time.

The existence of energy creates space and time so technically what created energy created space and time.

energy cannot be created nor destroyed.

No shit. But it can have a beginning and useable energy can become unusable energy of the system.

No energy can't! That is what CANNOT BE CREATED means. DUH!

 

[edthecynic]

Equilibrium violates the Third Law of Thermodynamics.
And thank you for admitting Energy created space/time.

Not this again.

YOU brought YOUR pontification up, did you really expect it to go unchallenged afterwards???

It's a red herring that has no relation to entropy. Specifically how useable energy becomes unusable to the system.

But you go right ahead and argue that objects don't equilibrate in the universe.

why would I argue YOUR stupid Straw Man?
While objects within the universe can equilibrate, the UNIVERSE cannot equilibrate!

You are going to make semantics argument. Good Lord, you are getting desperate.

It is NOT semantics, and nobody knows that better than YOU!

 

[ding]

And thank you for admitting Energy created space/time.

The existence of energy creates space and time so technically what created energy created space and time.

energy cannot be created nor destroyed.

No shit. But it can have a beginning and useable energy can become unusable energy of the system.

No energy can't! That is what CANNOT BE CREATED means. DUH!

I just explained how. Here, let me do it again.

Inflation Theory, the First Law of Thermodynamics and quantum mechanics tells us that it is possible for matter to have a beginning. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.

 

[ding]

Not this again.

YOU brought YOUR pontification up, did you really expect it to go unchallenged afterwards???

It's a red herring that has no relation to entropy. Specifically how useable energy becomes unusable to the system.

But you go right ahead and argue that objects don't equilibrate in the universe.

why would I argue YOUR stupid Straw Man?
While objects within the universe can equilibrate, the UNIVERSE cannot equilibrate!

You are going to make semantics argument. Good Lord, you are getting desperate.

It is NOT semantics, and nobody knows that better than YOU!

Actually, you are right. You got it totally wrong. The objects are the universe and you have already aditted that they equilibrate.

 

[edthecynic]

And thank you for admitting Energy created space/time.

The existence of energy creates space and time so technically what created energy created space and time.

energy cannot be created nor destroyed.

No shit. But it can have a beginning and useable energy can become unusable energy of the system.

No energy can't! That is what CANNOT BE CREATED means. DUH!

I just explained how. Here, let me do it again.

Inflation Theory, the First Law of Thermodynamics and quantum mechanics tells us that it is possible for matter to have a beginning. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.

That is all pore BULLSHIT doublespeak! And you know it!
It actually contradicts itself, but you are too STUPID to see it!

 

[edthecynic]

YOU brought YOUR pontification up, did you really expect it to go unchallenged afterwards???

It's a red herring that has no relation to entropy. Specifically how useable energy becomes unusable to the system.

But you go right ahead and argue that objects don't equilibrate in the universe.

why would I argue YOUR stupid Straw Man?
While objects within the universe can equilibrate, the UNIVERSE cannot equilibrate!

You are going to make semantics argument. Good Lord, you are getting desperate.

It is NOT semantics, and nobody knows that better than YOU!

Actually, you are right. You got it totally wrong. The objects are the universe and you have already aditted that they equilibrate.

SOME objects within the universe can equilibrate, but the universe as a whole cannot.
Get it now?

 

[ding]

It's a red herring that has no relation to entropy. Specifically how useable energy becomes unusable to the system.

But you go right ahead and argue that objects don't equilibrate in the universe.

why would I argue YOUR stupid Straw Man?
While objects within the universe can equilibrate, the UNIVERSE cannot equilibrate!

You are going to make semantics argument. Good Lord, you are getting desperate.

It is NOT semantics, and nobody knows that better than YOU!

Actually, you are right. You got it totally wrong. The objects are the universe and you have already aditted that they equilibrate.

SOME objects within the universe can equilibrate, but the universe as a whole cannot.
Get it now?

So you believe some objects have a super power to prevent their energy from flowing to cooler objects?

That's weird. You should publish that shit.

 

[ding]

The existence of energy creates space and time so technically what created energy created space and time.

energy cannot be created nor destroyed.

No shit. But it can have a beginning and useable energy can become unusable energy of the system.

No energy can't! That is what CANNOT BE CREATED means. DUH!

I just explained how. Here, let me do it again.

Inflation Theory, the First Law of Thermodynamics and quantum mechanics tells us that it is possible for matter to have a beginning. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.

That is all pore BULLSHIT doublespeak! And you know it!
It actually contradicts itself, but you are too STUPID to see it!

That's quite a technical argument you just made there, Ed

Please tell me how it contradicts itself, Ed. I'm sure Alexander Vilenkin would love to hear about how some anonymous internet troll, found a flaw in his work.

 

[edthecynic]

why would I argue YOUR stupid Straw Man?
While objects within the universe can equilibrate, the UNIVERSE cannot equilibrate!

You are going to make semantics argument. Good Lord, you are getting desperate.

It is NOT semantics, and nobody knows that better than YOU!

Actually, you are right. You got it totally wrong. The objects are the universe and you have already aditted that they equilibrate.

SOME objects within the universe can equilibrate, but the universe as a whole cannot.
Get it now?

So you believe some objects have a super power to prevent their energy from flowing to cooler objects?

That's weird. You should publish that shit.

Your desperation is showing!

 

[edthecynic]

energy cannot be created nor destroyed.

No shit. But it can have a beginning and useable energy can become unusable energy of the system.

No energy can't! That is what CANNOT BE CREATED means. DUH!

I just explained how. Here, let me do it again.

Inflation Theory, the First Law of Thermodynamics and quantum mechanics tells us that it is possible for matter to have a beginning. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.

That is all pore BULLSHIT doublespeak! And you know it!
It actually contradicts itself, but you are too STUPID to see it!

That's quite a technical argument you just made there, Ed

Please tell me how it contradicts itself, Ed. I'm sure Alexander Vilenkin would love to hear about how some anonymous internet troll, found a flaw in his work.

The perpetual dumb act!
I highlighted the obvious contradiction, reducing you to name dropping people whose concepts YOU don't even understand.

 

[ding]

You are going to make semantics argument. Good Lord, you are getting desperate.

It is NOT semantics, and nobody knows that better than YOU!

Actually, you are right. You got it totally wrong. The objects are the universe and you have already aditted that they equilibrate.

SOME objects within the universe can equilibrate, but the universe as a whole cannot.
Get it now?

So you believe some objects have a super power to prevent their energy from flowing to cooler objects?

That's weird. You should publish that shit.

Your desperation is showing!

I just smoked your ass, Ed.

So tell me, since you don't believe that all objects in the universe will equilibrate, what would it look like if the universe existed forever as far as the objects that would equilibrate?

And are we in a special place where the laws of physics break down and our objects won't equilibrate? How does that work? What would that look like? Would I be able to make an infinite fire that would never die out?

 

[ding]

No shit. But it can have a beginning and useable energy can become unusable energy of the system.

No energy can't! That is what CANNOT BE CREATED means. DUH!

I just explained how. Here, let me do it again.

Inflation Theory, the First Law of Thermodynamics and quantum mechanics tells us that it is possible for matter to have a beginning. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.

That is all pore BULLSHIT doublespeak! And you know it!
It actually contradicts itself, but you are too STUPID to see it!

That's quite a technical argument you just made there, Ed

Please tell me how it contradicts itself, Ed. I'm sure Alexander Vilenkin would love to hear about how some anonymous internet troll, found a flaw in his work.

The perpetual dumb act!
I highlighted the obvious contradiction, reducing you to name dropping people whose concepts YOU don't even understand.

I don't see how they are contradictions, Ed. Can you explain how they contradict each other?