Are there any Athiest here?

[MrSquished]

If there are supernatural beings then pretty much every thing we know about physics is rubbish.
Thats a really high bar to ask people to entertain with literally no evidence supporting it.

Just call it Dark Energy

 

[WelshBloke]

Just call it Dark Energy

Call what Dark Energy? A supernatural consciousness that can breach all the fundamental laws of the universe that we have and can converse with humans?

Thats not something I'm going to accept exists without any evidence.

 

[MrSquished]

Call what Dark Energy? A supernatural consciousness that can breach all the fundamental laws of the universe that we have and can converse with humans?

Thats not something I'm going to accept exists without any evidence.

I mean actual Dark Energy, a name given to a cosmological phenomenon we have no idea is about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy

"In physical cosmology and astronomy, dark energy is an unknown form of energy that affects the universe on the largest scales. The first observational evidence for its existence came from supernovae measurements, which showed that the universe does not expand at a constant rate; rather, the expansion of the universe is accelerating.[1][2] Understanding the evolution of the universe requires knowledge of its starting conditions and its composition. Prior to these observations, the only forms of matter-energy known to exist were ordinary matter, antimatter, dark matter, and radiation. Measurements of the cosmic microwave background suggest the universe began in a hot Big Bang, from which general relativity explains its evolution and the subsequent large scale motion. Without introducing a new form of energy, there was no way to explain how an accelerating universe could be measured. "

 

[Mai72]

Has anyone heard of this preacher. Bill Wiese.

Bill has a book out called "23 minutes in hell." In the book he claims that he was transported to hell from his bed. What's funny is he can't show actual proof which makes these type of claims perfect to scam frightened people out of their money. Of course, he's sold millions and millions copies of his book. He has a net worth that totals in the millions. So, you too can buy his book for only $10.95, plus a follow up book for $14.95 and a dvd. BTW, those YT comments are priceless and sad.

 

[MrSquished]

Has anyone heard of this preacher. Bill Wiese.

Bill has a book out called "23 minutes in hell." In the book he claims that he was transported to hell from his bed. What's funny is he can't show actual proof which makes these type of claims perfect to scam frightened people out of their money. Of course, he's sold millions and millions copies of his book. He has a net worth that totals in the millions. So, you too can buy his book for only $10.95, plus a follow up book for $14.95 and a dvd. BTW, those YT comments are priceless and sad.

You got guys like this that are insanely rich too

People are fucking dumb

 

[WelshBloke]

I mean actual Dark Energy, a name given to a cosmological phenomenon we have no idea is about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy

"In physical cosmology and astronomy, dark energy is an unknown form of energy that affects the universe on the largest scales. The first observational evidence for its existence came from supernovae measurements, which showed that the universe does not expand at a constant rate; rather, the expansion of the universe is accelerating.[1][2] Understanding the evolution of the universe requires knowledge of its starting conditions and its composition. Prior to these observations, the only forms of matter-energy known to exist were ordinary matter, antimatter, dark matter, and radiation. Measurements of the cosmic microwave background suggest the universe began in a hot Big Bang, from which general relativity explains its evolution and the subsequent large scale motion. Without introducing a new form of energy, there was no way to explain how an accelerating universe could be measured. "

None of that is supernatural and none of that involves a consciousness that transcends natural laws.
In short none of that has anything to do with God.

 

[Mai72]

You got guys like this that are insanely rich too

People are fucking dumb

Oh, I know Kenneth. He's worth over $300m. I should tell people that I was in hell. So give me MONEY!!! I'll save EVERYONE at th low low cost of $1497 or,

3 easy installments of $500. CALL NOW!! Mary, Moses and Abraham are here waiting to take your mone... Oh, I mean your calls.

 

[MrSquished]

None of that is supernatural and none of that involves a consciousness that transcends natural laws.
In short none of that has anything to do with God.

How do you know that? We'd have to know everything for that to be true, but yet we are stuck here pretty much on our planet with a couple of us getting into orbit here and there.

If you think man knows all the secrets of the universe and nothing else is possible that is pretty presumptuous imo.

Maybe the next 'discovery' that messes with our current understanding of the universe we can call ATOT Energy

 

[MrSquished]

Couple good articles on the matter:

Can Science Rule Out God?

We must understand the laws of nature before we can deduce their origins

blogs.scientificamerican.com

The Boundaries Between Science and Religion

“The physical universe is subject to rational analysis and the methods of science. The spiritual universe is not. All of us have had experiences that are not subject to rational analysis. Besides religion, much of our art and our values and our personal relationships with other people spring...

fs.blog

And in some way they only deal with one God. Who are we to say IF there is even one supernatural being that it is only one? It could be zero, it could be 1,000 spread throughout infinite galaxies.

 

[WelshBloke]

Couple good articles on the matter:

Can Science Rule Out God?

We must understand the laws of nature before we can deduce their origins

blogs.scientificamerican.com

The Boundaries Between Science and Religion

“The physical universe is subject to rational analysis and the methods of science. The spiritual universe is not. All of us have had experiences that are not subject to rational analysis. Besides religion, much of our art and our values and our personal relationships with other people spring...

fs.blog

And in some way they only deal with one God. Who are we to say IF there is even one supernatural being that it is only one? It could be zero, it could be 1,000 spread throughout infinite galaxies.

Because we don't know everything therefore God isn't a sensible argument.

 

[MrSquished]

Because we don't know everything therefore God isn't a sensible argument.

I never said therefore God. I said I simply don't know so I will not claim to know either way. With the knowledge we have now it's simply unknowable. I can say that I think the man-made constructs of god and religion are trash, I just can't say it's impossible that there aren't more powerful beings beyond our current comprehension of the universe, which is significantly limited.

 

[MtnMan]

The origins of the universe are simply not known with conflicting theories and new information being discovered such as dark energy. There is literally so much we don't know about our own existence nevermind the machinations of stuff light years away and 13+ billion years ago. Perhaps out of nothing there was a singularity. Or it's part of the latest way we have convinced ourselves we know it all. And that is it. Or perhaps not. I have seen no evidence of a God or Gods per se, and despise pretty much all organized religion, but I have also not seen enough evidence that we truly understand everything going on in the universe around us either. While I lean towards their being no god or gods, I can't pretend to know that either. We are a tiny speck in a galaxy among many galaxies. Therefore we can't proclaim we know there are no supernatural beings in the universe.

We don't know it all, we will never know it all. But to just pass not knowing off on a some god is far worse than not knowing. It's the lazy way out, it is the stupid way out. There is absolutely nothing wrong with not knowing.

 

[MrSquished]

We don't know it all, we will never know it all. But to just pass not knowing off on a some god is far worse than not knowing. It's the lazy way out, it is the stupid way out. There is absolutely nothing wrong with not knowing.

That's exactly what an agnostic is, not knowing. That's the entire point.

 

[lxskllr]

Semantics aren't generally useful in these discussions. It's a microfine line between atheist and agnostic that might not even exist. I doubt there's too many atheists that would disbelieve convincing proof of a god if presented, but the term "agnostic" is too wishy washy to be a good description. Since there isn't a single shred of proof of the existence of gods, I'm comfortable saying there aren't any, and I don't consider myself an agnostic thinking "Awe gee, I just don't know. Maybe there's a god". Show me some godlike stuff, and I might come around...

 

[MrSquished]

We are little tiny infinitesimally small peons in an infinitely expanding universe of which we've maybe touched upon a grain of sand from all the beaches of earth, relatively speaking. How do we know there is nothing out there that might be considered a higher power to us now? It's impossible.

 

[MtnMan]

That's exactly what an agnostic is, not knowing. That's the entire point.

It's the physics or science that is the unknown or understood. To pass it off that "maybe" there is some kind of being responsible really boggles reason.

 

[Dulanic]

Totally agnostic. This universe is much too large for me to ever really understand. I gladly admit, I have no idea.

 

[MtnMan]

I suspect they are confusing atheism with antitheism. As far as I'm concerned atheism just means an absence of belief. I wasn't bought up with any religious belief, ergo I don't have any, and neither do the vast majority of people I've known in life, but I don't spend much time being angry about those who do believe or trying to convert them.

Much the same for me, and while I have no animosity for true believers, I do recognize the threat they pose to society. They cannot be converted, but reading personal accounts of how some theists lost their belief and became atheists, it was because they began to think and most importantly question what they had been taught to believe.

I have met some absoulty horrible people that hide behind the cloak of religion. One piece of advise I do remember learning from my dad, was "there is only one reason to go to church on Sunday. It is to see who is sitting on the front pew, for that is that man that will screw you on Monday". I found that to be very sage advise later in life, though I never went on Sunday. The business man with a large cross necklace worn outside his suit and over his tie... yea, he would make Trump look like an honest man.

 

[pmv]

Has anyone heard of this preacher. Bill Wiese.

Bill has a book out called "23 minutes in hell." In the book he claims that he was transported to hell from his bed. What's funny is he can't show actual proof which makes these type of claims perfect to scam frightened people out of their money. Of course, he's sold millions and millions copies of his book. He has a net worth that totals in the millions. So, you too can buy his book for only $10.95, plus a follow up book for $14.95 and a dvd. BTW, those YT comments are priceless and sad.

And he made it back? How did he get past the end-of-level boss? 23 minutes is a pretty good speed-run, I guess.

 

[pmv]

That's exactly what an agnostic is, not knowing. That's the entire point.

Are you sure about that?

 

[pmv]

Totally agnostic. This universe is much too large for me to ever really understand. I gladly admit, I have no idea.

How do you know you are agnostic? Given you can't understand this universe, why are you so sure you understand yourself - and agnosticism - well enough to know you are agnostic?

Shouldn't you admit you can't be sure whether or not you are agnostic?

 

[MrSquished]

It's the physics or science that is the unknown or understood. To pass it off that "maybe" there is some kind of being responsible really boggles reason.

I never said I don't believe in science. Science is still learning aplenty though. https://earthsky.org/space/definition-what-is-dark-energy#:~:text=Dark energy is the name,learned the universe is expanding.

I strongly believe in science in many ways, there are lots of rules in our world that we have discovered, and plenty mysteries too. I think organized religion is total bullshit and mostly evil or detrimental to society. Just look at our current Evangelical population - majority terrible. Radical Islam? Horrible. Even Buddhism is very misogynistic.

I certainly don't claim there is a god or multiple gods. But we are barely scratching the surface of what we know about the Universe, so I think being so presumptious as to say there is absolutely no chance in hell (pun intended) that anything transcends the rules of the physical world we currently know now is premature.

 

[pmv]

I never said I don't believe in science. Science is still learning aplenty though. https://earthsky.org/space/definition-what-is-dark-energy#:~:text=Dark energy is the name,learned the universe is expanding.

I strongly believe in science in many ways, there are lots of rules in our world that we have discovered, and plenty mysteries too. I think organized religion is total bullshit and mostly evil or detrimental to society. Just look at our current Evangelical population - majority terrible. Radical Islam? Horrible. Even Buddhism is very misogynistic.

I certainly don't claim there is a god or multiple gods. But we are barely scratching the surface of what we know about the Universe, so I think being so presumptious as to say there is absolutely no chance in hell (pun intended) that anything transcends the rules of the physical world we currently know now is premature.

Yes, we can't say we know anything with 100% certainty. There are limits to how sure we can be about what we think we know. But the question surely has to be - how do you actually _live_ your day-to-day life, now? Do you start off every morning being agnostic as to whether the floor will still be there when you get out of bed? Do you assume it's a reasonable chance that you can cross the road right in front of a speeding truck, confident it will just harmlessly pass through you - because it would be presumptious to say there was no chance in hell that it would do so?

That's the thing about "agnosticism" - I've yet to meet an agnostic who actually lives as if they are truly agnostic about the facts of the world. Mostly they live the same way the athiests do. They rarely jump off high buildings on the off chance that "maybe they can fly, who can say for sure?" Nor do they seem to be that worried about the fact that by many religious strictures they are damning themselves to eternal suffering by their lifestyle or failure to perform some ritual or other. I just think agnosticism is in bad-faith - agnostics mostly aren't really agnostic, they just _say_ they are.

 

[kage69]

The founding fathers of USA were not on board when Mayflower arrived at Cape Cod. Two very different group of people roughly a century apart.

I have no idea why you are acting like someone is arguing otherwise, especially as the second sentence of my post you responded to is clear on that point. I think you're trying to validate your mention of liberalism as I want to believe you know that Puritans didn't write the Constitution. Not sure how making distinctions between fundies and elected leaders and intellectuals got you thinking it was a claim they all hung out together at same time.

Btw, I'm not sure if you realize this or not but your mention of Quakers contradicts your previous assertion, that they left because Europe got too liberal. Quakers were some of the original English Dissenters right? Their beef was with the CoE, not en vogue deists full of Frenchified sciencey notions.

 

[kage69]

Yeah, but when you said "This country was created as a haven from religious and monarchical persecution/subjugation. " that's gilding the lilly rather.

I'm familiar with the phrase, but I'm not sure how it applies here. A single sentence that abbreviates a topic like that is usually considered an act of brevity, not unnecessary embellishment. Please note that I didn't identify Puritan pilgrims as the creators of the United States of America.

The desire of the Puritans to be free to persecute others was a significant strand of US culture from the start. The founding fathers by no means were entirely of one mind when it came to religion.

No real argument on any of that. Of course they weren't of one mind, there was widespread sweeping disagreement! Various factions of Protestantism with some Roman Catholic and deists thrown in does not a teaparty make. Still, they produced a republic unchained to any church, religious leader or dynasty, and went further to provide the freedom of religion. Not the usual kind of output for hyper conservative theocratic societies, kind of my point.