Atheism for the WIN! YES!!!

[Bowfinger]

Almost every single atheist I know used to be a Christian of some sort. I don't know who said it earlier but the best way to "create" more atheists is to encourage people to read the bible cover to cover. It worked for me.

I have only met a handful of Christians that know more about their religion than I do.

That's true for me. I started as your typical social Christian accepting my parents' religion by default. Then in my teens, in spite of my strong bias towards science and reason, some friends "converted" me to a fundamentalist Christian. I became a fervent believer, joining two denominations, Baptists and Church of Christ. Over the next couple of years, the more I read the Bible and compared what it said to their words and acts, the more I realized how disconnected they were. As much as they both claimed to accept the Bible literally, it was quite obvious they formed their conclusions first, then twisted scripture to support their beliefs.

As I then began to dig deeper into religion generally, I learned how various churches used arbitrary and self-serving citeria to decide what was "the Word of God" and what was not. I learned how the Judeo-Christian scripture was largely derived from earlier religions, who in turn formed their beliefs from religions before them. I found that each "one true religion" was largely a repackaging of superstitions and fables that could often be traced back to the dawn of mankind.

My rational side gradually reasserted itself and I finally realized the Bible offered no evidence of an actual God. It was a great story book with valuable life lessons ... but that is all. Modern religions are largely based on the same fears and superstitions that caused the earliest cave men to imagine supernatural explanations for the world around them.

None of this proves there are no gods. For people who want or need to believe, more power to you. As long as you don't try to shove your beliefs down my throat we're fine. Who knows, you may be right. Anything is possible.

I will tell you, however, that if you think Christianity is the one and only true religion, you're an arrogant and self-important ass. Christians are a minority on this big blue ball, and your dearly-held "true beliefs" aren't really yours at all. They mostly predate both Christianity and Judaism. It's very un-Christian of (some of) you to show so little tolerance for others.

 

[her209]

¶ Fifty-three percent of Protestants could not identify Martin Luther as the man who started the Protestant Reformation.

¶ Forty-five percent of Catholics did not know that their church teaches that the consecrated bread and wine in holy communion are not merely symbols, but actually become the body and blood of Christ.

Did they ask what day of the week Ash Wednesday and Good Friday occur on?

 

[DangerAardvark]

Why do Atheists think about religion so much? Look at this thread. So many bad arguments, so little time in the day. Reasonable Atheists test their own lack of belief on nearly a daily basis simply because the culture is so drenched in religion, and we have to contend with terrible arguments from both the religious and their non-religious sympathizers. Good thing they haven't had a new one for about 800 years.

 

[Atreus21]

And as I said, nothing "comes into being" at all. Everything you see is simply a reconfiguration of matter which already exists.

Okay, well call it whatever you want. But nothing in nature is reconfigured without some catalyst.

You'd do well to familiarize yourself with the first law of thermodynamics.

Been through that. Where did energy and matter come from?

Nothing. You just said, "everything has a preceding cause." You don't even comprehend the very words you type, do you?

Yes, I did, but apparently I have to beat you about the head with it several times before you realize it.

Well, apparently not enough times then. Give me any single object that "assembles" itself by itself.

 

[totalnoob]

Well, apparently not enough times then. Give me any single object that "assembles" itself by itself.

A magic man in the sky who can read minds and create matter and universes by wishing them into existence. He can obviously come into existence without an explanation. Duh.

 

[Atreus21]

A magic man in the sky who can read minds and create matter and universes by wishing them into existence. He can obviously come into existence without an explanation. Duh.

Do you have an argument?

 

[ShawnD1]

Well, apparently not enough times then. Give me any single object that "assembles" itself by itself.

If I pour oil in water, it automatically assembled itself into layers. pwned

 

[Atreus21]

If I pour oil in water, it automatically assembled itself into layers. pwned

Exactly so. It was brought about (caused) by pouring oil into water.

 

[FTM0305]

<Warning total troll response>

Mormon reporting. If you have any questions about your religion I'll be happy to answer them.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Okay, well call it whatever you want. But nothing in nature is reconfigured without some catalyst.

Define "catalyst" as you have used it in this context. Quite literally, atoms and molecules reconfiguring themselves is the rule, not the exception. Do you really think that you remain exactly the same configuration of matter from moment to moment? Do you think the same is true for the computer in front of you? Do you think that atoms and molecules are "still" at any point of their existence?

Been through that. Where did energy and matter come from?

Why should I believe it came from anywhere? What does the 1st Law of Thermodynamics say?

Well, apparently not enough times then. Give me any single object that "assembles" itself by itself.

What does that have to do with the glaring contradiction in your own words? Does everything have a preceding cause or not? If everything has a preceding cause, then nothing does not have a preceding cause. My fuck, you are dense.

Moreover, where did I propose that such an object that "assembles itself by itself" eixsts? Off-hand, I can tell you that Bernard convection cells form spontaneously. What now, bright guy?

 

[Atreus21]

Define "catalyst" as you have used it in this context. Quite literally, atoms and molecules reconfiguring themselves is the rule, not the exception. Do you really think that you remain exactly the same configuration of matter from moment to moment? Do you think the same is true for the computer in front of you? Do you think that atoms and molecules are "still" at any point of their existence?

Using a match to set something on fire is a catalyst. Things don't just spontaneously catch fire for no reason (ie, without a cause).

Why should I believe it came from anywhere? What does the 1st Law of Thermodynamics say?

That energy/matter is neither created nor destroyed. I'm no scientist, nor do I like trying to philosophically disprove scientific laws, but I can't help but wonder at this question: If matter is never created nor destroyed, doesn't this imply that matter has existed eternally, and thus that the universe is infinitely old? But we know that the universe is not infinitely old.

What does that have to do with the glaring contradiction in your own words? Does everything have a preceding cause or not? If everything has a preceding cause, then nothing does not have a preceding cause. My fuck, you are dense.

Moreover, where did I propose that such an object that "assembles itself by itself" eixsts? Off-hand, I can tell you that Bernard convection cells form spontaneously. What now, bright guy?

I'M dense?

Bernard Convection cells do not form spontaneously, they are caused by heating a liquid. Everything does have a preceding cause, as I stated a long time ago.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

It does say Catholics not all Christians. I know from experience being raised Lutheran AKA catholic lite I was taught to believe the blood and wine was truly flesh and blood. Which I always thought was odd.

If you have never read Stranger in a Strange Land, you should.The ritual you speak of, is at its heart, a form of cannibalism.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Using a match to set something on fire is a catalyst.

I asked you to define "catalyst" in a rigorous way. You only gave me an example of something that you claim is a catalyst. This does not meet the request, so it remains for you to answer. Please define "catalyst."

Things don't just spontaneously catch fire for no reason (ie, without a catalyst).

Given enough heat, they do. Is it your contention that energy is a catalyst? Do you realize that mass and energy are the same thing, such that according to this meaning, everything is a catalyst?

You see, what you are doing is abusing language because it suits your agenda. You've expanded the definition of your new favorite word to the point that it's meaningless. If nothing is not a catalyst, then you can't say what is a catalyst.

That energy/matter is neither created nor destroyed.

So why are you asking when it was created?

I'm no scientist, nor do I like trying to philosophically disprove scientific laws, but I can't help but wonder at this question: If matter is never created nor destroyed, doesn't this imply that matter has existed eternally, and thus that the universe is infinitely old? But we know that the universe is not infinitely old.

No, we don't. Anyone that has told you we do is mistaken.

Bernard Convection cells do not form spontaneously,

Yes, they do, according to generally accepted chemical principles.

they are caused by heating a liquid.

Heat is nothing more than increasing the energy of the substance's molecules. It isn't a "catalyst" according to any ordinary use of the term in science. Like I said above, if energy is a catalyst, then everything is a catalyst, and the term is meaningless.

Everything does have a preceding cause, as I stated a long time ago.

Then nothing does not have a preceding cause. It follows necessarily from that premise (If all X are A, then no X are not-A). Yet here you are demanding to know which thing does not have a preceding cause, and you don't even realize how blatant of a contradicition that is. FUCK YOU, learn something.

 

[Atreus21]

I asked you to define "catalyst" in a rigorous way. You only gave me an example of something that you claim is a catalyst. This does not meet the request, so it remains for you to answer. Please define "catalyst."

Someone or something that brings about a change.

Given enough heat, they do. Is it your contention that energy is a catalyst? Do you realize that mass and energy are the same thing, such that according to this meaning, everything is a catalyst?

Exactly. Energy is a catalyst. In fact, I can't think of any catalyst other than energy.

You see, what you are doing is abusing language because it suits your agenda. You've expanded the definition of your new favorite word to the point that it's meaningless. If nothing is not a catalyst, then you can't say what is a catalyst.

Energy is a catalyst. What's wrong with that?

No, we don't. Anyone that has told you we do is mistaken.

Right. I guess you know better than wikipedia's sources, then. Maybe you should correct it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe#cite_note-marshallaugerhilbertblandford-0

Yes, they do, according to generally accepted chemical principles.

You should correct wikipedia again, then.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rayleigh-Bénard_convection

Rayleigh-Bénard convection is a type of natural convection, occurring in a plane of fluid heated from below.

Heat is nothing more than increasing the energy of the substance's molecules. It isn't a "catalyst" according to any ordinary use of the term in science. Like I said above, if energy is a catalyst, then everything is a catalyst, and the term is meaningless.

Everything is a catalyst. That's exactly the point. Everything is a cause, and itself has a cause. EXCEPT for whatever set this enormous causal loop in motion.

Then nothing does not have a preceding cause. It follows necessarily from that premise (If all X are A, then no X are not-A). Yet here you are demanding to know which thing does not have a preceding cause, and you don't even realize how blatant of a contradicition that is. FUCK YOU, learn something.

I defy you to make a single post without dropping an insult.

Again, that's exactly the point. The nature of causes necessarily and logically suggest something that is seemingly contradictory: An uncaused cause.

 

[ShawnD1]

Exactly so. It was brought about (caused) by pouring oil into water.

I'm guessing you're not familiar with the concept of cycling equilibrium.
The carbon cycle --> Jesus makes every part of it happen

Mormon reporting. If you have any questions about your religion I'll be happy to answer them.

I have one. The Nazis were mostly Christian, and they even had "Gott Mit Uns" (God With Us) on their belt buckles. With this in mind, why did they persecute Jews when they knew that Jesus was Jewish? Would they have put Jesus in a concentration camp if given the chance?

 

[Atreus21]

I'm guessing you're not familiar with the concept of cycling equilibrium.
The carbon cycle --> Jesus makes every part of it happen

Not saying that at all. Just saying that everything, except whatever started it, has a preceding cause.

 

[FTM0305]

So here a brain teaser for Atheist and Religious types that believe in God as a being, not just the Force.

Evolution is true. A being develops over a space of time, the elements combine just right to give this being an extended life span. Being develops the ability to traverse time and space. In the space of infinite time develops advanced cognitive skills and is able to affect the environment around them according to advance laws of nature.

God through evolution anyone?

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

I'm guessing you're not familiar with the concept of cycling equilibrium.
The carbon cycle --> Jesus makes every part of it happen



I have one. The Nazis were mostly Christian, and they even had "Gott Mit Uns" (God With Us) on their belt buckles. With this in mind, why did they persecute Jews when they knew that Jesus was Jewish? Would they have put Jesus in a concentration camp if given the chance?

Hitler actually said that he wanted revenge on the Jews for killing Christ, i guess he was the Mel Gibson of his time.

 

[totalnoob]

Exactly. Energy is a catalyst. In fact, I can't think of any catalyst other than energy.

Ever hear of snowflakes or any ice crystals? Energy is not being used to create snowflakes. The heat is actually being REMOVED from the chaotic water molecules. When the energy is removed from the system, a highly complex crystalline structure forms spontaneously. No energy is needed for a perfect symmetry (order) to emerge out of disorder. So there's one example.

As for the age of the universe. According to the big bang, TIME ITSELF began with the inflation 13.7 billion years ago. So the universe is 13.7 billion years old..but practically speaking it is also infinite, since speaking of "time" before time existed is nonsensical.

 

[airdata]

I think the same applies with general politics.

People who don't align themselves to either side of the false left/right paradigm are going to be smarter people.

They had fox news going when I was at the gym last night and it was hilarious that Hannity had a panel of people who were all surprisingly anti Obama.

What's more hilarious is the right wing people who are against Obama for some of the same stuff bush was doing, but it was OK when bush was doing it.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

So here a brain teaser for Atheist and Religious types that believe in God as a being, not just the Force.

Evolution is true. A being develops over a space of time, the elements combine just right to give this being an extended life span. Being develops the ability to traverse time and space. In the space of infinite time develops advanced cognitive skills and is able to affect the environment around them according to advance laws of nature.

God through evolution anyone?

Evolution, based on available evidence, God, no, based on lack of any evidence. (and if someone says "absence of evidence isn't evidence of abscence" i'll crawl throu the fucking internet and shoot the fucking retard)

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Ever hear of snowflakes or any ice crystals? Energy is not being used to create snowflakes. The heat is actually being REMOVED from the chaotic water molecules. When the energy is removed from the system, a highly complex crystalline structure forms spontaneously. No energy is needed for a perfect symmetry (order) to emerge out of disorder. So there's one example.

As for the age of the universe. According to the big bang, TIME ITSELF began with the inflation 13.7 billion years ago. So the universe is 13.7 billion years old..but practically speaking it is also infinite, since speaking of "time" before time existed is nonsensical.

Everyone knows God sits on the clouds and make the snowflakes one by one... pffft, don't you know ANYTHING?

 

[Siddhartha]

I got 14 out of 15 correct because I pay attention and have some degree of intellectual curiosity. I am not particularly religious and I do not care if anyone wants to worship the Easter Bunny or whatever as long as they keep it to themselves.

 

[Atreus21]

Ever hear of snowflakes or any ice crystals? Energy is not being used to create snowflakes. The heat is actually being REMOVED from the chaotic water molecules. When the energy is removed from the system, a highly complex crystalline structure forms spontaneously. No energy is needed for a perfect symmetry (order) to emerge out of disorder. So there's one example.

The heat is being removed from the water molecules. By what?

As for the age of the universe. According to the big bang, TIME ITSELF began with the inflation 13.7 billion years ago. So the universe is 13.7 billion years old..but practically speaking it is also infinite, since speaking of "time" before time existed is nonsensical.

Quite true. I'm not talking about time before the Big Bang. This is getting too abstract.

 

[totalnoob]

The heat is being removed from the water molecules. By what?

The vacuum of space. Or any place where there is no heat energy interfering with them.