• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Atheists Call 9-11 Memorial Cross "Grossly Offensive"

Page 39 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
buckshot24 said:
I'm not assuming time is independent.
Click to expand...

I know you're not making this assumption consciously, but you're nevertheless making it. Consider your second premise:

The universe came into existence.
Click to expand...

You're using the past tense and implicitly assuming that a state existed in which there was no universe, and then AFTER that there was a state where a universe existed. But "before" and "after" are adverbs that assume there's a sequence in time. You're assuming time existed OUTSIDE of the universe.

But if time is a product OF the universe - something that exists only BECAUSE the universe exists, then your premise is nonsensical.
 
shira said:
Because life for most people is filled with pain and suffering, or the fear of pain and suffering, people need illusions.
Click to expand...

People adapt. We evolve. As soon as we don't fear death, essentially, or fear the unknown, we won't have use for the false comfort of avoiding death which sparks the forest fire of religion.

I certainly don't need illusions. On one hand, only lesser-intelligent people or weak-minded people need illusions so that's good. On the other hand, that seems to unfortunately include most of the planet.
 
shira said:
But if time is a product OF the universe - something that exists only BECAUSE the universe exists, then your premise is nonsensical.
Click to expand...

Einstein proved that space and time are linked -they're the same. You can't have one without the other.
 
shira said:
I know you're not making this assumption consciously, but you're nevertheless making it. Consider your second premise:



You're using the past tense and implicitly assuming that a state existed in which there was no universe, and then AFTER that there was a state where a universe existed. But "before" and "after" are adverbs that assume there's a sequence in time. You're assuming time existed OUTSIDE of the universe.

But if time is a product OF the universe - something that exists only BECAUSE the universe exists, then your premise is nonsensical.
Click to expand...
The phrase "the universe came into existence" is perfectly coherent. It doesn't assume a time before it came into existence. But in any case there is no reason to believe that the absence of time "before" the big bang would allow something to come into existence from nothing (and a quantum vacuum is not nothing).
 
ThinClient said:
Look how defensive you're getting. I am absolutely talking about Christianity but you reject what I type because you have your own agenda.
Click to expand...
No, you're talking about a caricature of Christianity.
You can cover your ears and close your eyes and go LALALALALALA until you're blue in the face, but the fact remains that you belong to one of the youngest, most violent religions in history. Your religion preaches the subjugation of women, slavery (including how to properly regulate beating your slaves), genocide, and other stupid bullshit that's right there in the text in your bible.
Click to expand...
I must have missed that sermon.😛
Your religion is CREATED from other religions. The name Satan, the entire concept of creation, salvation, how it supposedly happened, all of it, can be found piece-mealed together from other religions.

You are what I like to call sheeple. 🙂
Click to expand...
Good for you. I think I can see why Rob left you to your own ramblings. You're not discussing anything all you're doing is belching out assertion after assertion all of which I have zero desire to engage you on. Tell Higgins I said hi.

1-2higgins.JPG
 
buckshot24 said:
The phrase "the universe came into existence" is perfectly coherent. It doesn't assume a time before it came into existence. But in any case there is no reason to believe that the absence of time "before" the big bang would allow something to come into existence from nothing (and a quantum vacuum is not nothing).
Click to expand...

You're being dishonest here. You're telling us that "existence" is something that the universe "came into," as if "existence" is a state that exists apart from the universe.

It would be far more accurate to say "13.7 billion years ago [or whatever] the point-universe expanded; existence and time coincided with this expansion."

Notice that both "existence" and "time" are products of the universe, not the other way around.
 
shira said:
I would say this is a slightly different way, but I essentially agree.
Click to expand...

Well so would I, but you have to put kid gloves over the top of the first set of kid gloves to explain this kind of stuff to people who, as he has demonstrated in this thread, have no experience on the concept 😛
 
shira said:
Nothing. Most people will always believe in a supernatural "presence." And that's probably a good thing. The full sentiment expressed by Marx says it pretty clearly (bolding is mine):



Because life for most people is filled with pain and suffering, or the fear of pain and suffering, people need illusions.
Click to expand...

You haven't offered one fact, just the opinion of your bearded earth-daddy, and your blatant confirmation bias.

You don't know why most people believe in God, so you're fishing for a natural human link in an attempt to explain it away.

Then you beg the question: Is there any scientific research that makes the direct link with belief in God (supernatural) with pain and suffering?

To avoid confirmation bias, I'd like to see several sources.
 
Real science stays very far away from God. Its funny the Atheists have such a circle jerk thing going for science meanwhile I had been reading nature and several other journals etc. for 4 years and never a single mention. However there was a whole lot of quantifying.

Its almost like Atheists got their beliefs from the discovery channel level of science...Its really no different than people who get their beliefs from the history channel and go the other way and believe in aliens. The type of science that ever mentions god is like the yahoo answers of science.
 
OverVolt said:
Real science stays very far away from God. Its funny the Atheists have such a circle jerk thing going for science meanwhile I had been reading nature and several other journals etc. for 4 years and never a single mention. However there was a whole lot of quantifying.

Its almost like Atheists got their beliefs from the discovery channel level of science...Its really no different than people who get their beliefs from the history channel and go the other way and believe in aliens. The type of science that ever mentions god is like the yahoo answers of science.
Click to expand...

Either you are purposefully being obtuse or are just trolling - I can't tell.

I will repeat it again for you - atheism is the lack of belief in deities. You don't get a lack of belief from somewhere - lack of belief is never having belief in the first place. It's the same concept as the number 0 - ie. not having something, something is not there to begin with. If you compare a bunch of people with cars to someone without a car, you can't say the person without a car has a "car of nothing". As the quote goes, atheism is to religion as abstinence is to a sex position.
 
Juddog said:
Either you are purposefully being obtuse or are just trolling - I can't tell.

I will repeat it again for you - atheism is the lack of belief in deities. You don't get a lack of belief from somewhere - lack of belief is never having belief in the first place. It's the same concept as the number 0 - ie. not having something, something is not there to begin with. If you compare a bunch of people with cars to someone without a car, you can't say the person without a car has a "car of nothing". As the quote goes, atheism is to religion as abstinence is to a sex position.
Click to expand...
I have to say this ironically.

Amen!
 
shira said:
You're being dishonest here. You're telling us that "existence" is something that the universe "came into," as if "existence" is a state that exists apart from the universe.
Click to expand...
Accusing me of lying isn't helping you any. But you're playing word games. The universe exists, it is expanding on average so it must have had a beginning. Just because things get dicey when no time exists doesn't mean that something can come from nothing.
It would be far more accurate to say "13.7 billion years ago [or whatever] the point-universe expanded; existence and time coincided with this expansion."
Click to expand...
Whatever it was still requires a cause.

Notice that both "existence" and "time" are products of the universe, not the other way around.
Click to expand...
Yet you turn around and say that "point-universe" expanded implying it existed. If it didn't exist then it couldn't have expanded.
 
buckshot24 said:
Do you believe that is true?
Click to expand...

Whether I believe it or not isn't relevant; it is a standard definition. It's like asking someone whether they believe it to be true that the word "amphibious" means "relating to, living in, or suited for both land and water."

-- edit -- fixed definition example
 
Juddog said:
Whether I believe it or not isn't relevant; it is a standard definition. It's like asking someone whether they believe it to be true that the word "amphibious" means "relating to, living in, or suited for both land and water."

-- edit -- fixed definition example
Click to expand...
No, thats not what I meant. You believe that there is no God. That is a belief.
 
Rob M. said:
You haven't offered one fact, just the opinion of your bearded earth-daddy, and your blatant confirmation bias.

You don't know why most people believe in God, so you're fishing for a natural human link in an attempt to explain it away.

Then you beg the question: Is there any scientific research that makes the direct link with belief in God (supernatural) with pain and suffering?

To avoid confirmation bias, I'd like to see several sources.
Click to expand...
Saying people believe in God because xyz is irrelevant. We could believe in God because the color green is pretty. This in no way addresses whether God actually exists. To suggest that it does is a classic example of the genetic fallacy.
 
buckshot24 said:
No, thats not what I meant. You believe that there is no God. That is a belief.
Click to expand...

Wow you still don't get it.

Let's go over this in class.

Harry has 5 apples. Sally has 7 apples. Henry has 11 apples. Joe has zero apples.

Let's say apples are selling for $.25 a piece at the market. The 4 students go to the market to sell their apples. How much money does Joe make?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top