loki_ghost
Registered Senior Member
I'll try to decode this one i guess.
Mosheh Thezion
Registered Senior Member
Greys? earth core??? what?
-MT
-MT
Godless,
Your complete lack of faith and willing to accept anything that might have the remote chance for an afterlife and the exsistence of God disturbs me. I registered just so I could reply to your posts.
Having experienced some tragedy in my life (most recently losing my father-in-law to cancer this year just months before our wedding), those instances personally have brought me closer to God. But, since this is a sci-fi forum, consider these points as a counter argument for your "fairy tale". I can only hope that you will at least consider the following:
THE EARTH
...its size is perfect. The Earth's size and corresponding gravity holds a thin layer of mostly nitrogen and oxygen gases, only extending about 50 miles above the Earth's surface. If Earth were smaller, an atmosphere would be impossible - if Earth were larger, its atmosphere would contain free hydrogen. Earth is the only known planet equipped with an atmosphere of the right mixture of gases to sustain plant, animal and human life.
THE HUMAN BRAIN
When NASA launches a shuttle mission, it is assumed a monkey didn't write the plan, but intelligent and knowledgeable minds. How does one explain the existence of the human brain? Only a mind more intelligent and knowledgeable than humanity could have created the human brain.
MERE CHANCE IS NOT AN ADEQUATE EXPLAINATION OF CREATION
Take Mount Rushmore, in which the likenesses of Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt are carved. Could you ever believe that it came about by chance? Given infinite time, wind, rain and chance, it is still hard to believe something like that, tied to history, was randomly formed in the side of a mountain. Common sense tells us that people planned and skillfully carved those figures.
The Earth's position to the sun, some properties of water, one organ in the human body. Could any of these have come about by chance?
MANKIND'S INHERENT SENSE OF RIGHT AND WRONG CANNOT BE BIOLOGICALLY EXPLAINED
There arises in all of us, of any culture, universal feelings of right and wrong. Even a thief gets upset and feels wronged when someone steals from him. If someone violently grabs a child from a family and rapes that child, there is an anger and revulsion and a rage to confront that act as evil, regardless of the culture. Where did we get this sense of wrongness? How do we explain a universal law in the conscience of all people that says murder for fun is wrong?
And in areas like courage, dying for a cause, love, dignity, duty and compassion, where did these come from? If people are merely products of physical evolution, "survival of the fittest," why do we sacrifice for each other? Where did we get this inner sense of right and wrong? Our conscience can best be explained by a loving Creator who cares about the decisions and harmony of humanity.
My point is that someone had all of this... it was no mistake. You can read the whole article here:
http://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html
As far as there being no "proof"... well, that's the whole point. If we had proof, you wouldn't need faith, which is the whole basis of religion. I truly believe that God asks us to just believe... that's the whole test. Having proof would make it redundant.
Just food for thought. I know this won't change your mind... just don't dimiss it entirely.
Your complete lack of faith and willing to accept anything that might have the remote chance for an afterlife and the exsistence of God disturbs me. I registered just so I could reply to your posts.
Having experienced some tragedy in my life (most recently losing my father-in-law to cancer this year just months before our wedding), those instances personally have brought me closer to God. But, since this is a sci-fi forum, consider these points as a counter argument for your "fairy tale". I can only hope that you will at least consider the following:
THE EARTH
...its size is perfect. The Earth's size and corresponding gravity holds a thin layer of mostly nitrogen and oxygen gases, only extending about 50 miles above the Earth's surface. If Earth were smaller, an atmosphere would be impossible - if Earth were larger, its atmosphere would contain free hydrogen. Earth is the only known planet equipped with an atmosphere of the right mixture of gases to sustain plant, animal and human life.
THE HUMAN BRAIN
When NASA launches a shuttle mission, it is assumed a monkey didn't write the plan, but intelligent and knowledgeable minds. How does one explain the existence of the human brain? Only a mind more intelligent and knowledgeable than humanity could have created the human brain.
MERE CHANCE IS NOT AN ADEQUATE EXPLAINATION OF CREATION
Take Mount Rushmore, in which the likenesses of Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt are carved. Could you ever believe that it came about by chance? Given infinite time, wind, rain and chance, it is still hard to believe something like that, tied to history, was randomly formed in the side of a mountain. Common sense tells us that people planned and skillfully carved those figures.
The Earth's position to the sun, some properties of water, one organ in the human body. Could any of these have come about by chance?
MANKIND'S INHERENT SENSE OF RIGHT AND WRONG CANNOT BE BIOLOGICALLY EXPLAINED
There arises in all of us, of any culture, universal feelings of right and wrong. Even a thief gets upset and feels wronged when someone steals from him. If someone violently grabs a child from a family and rapes that child, there is an anger and revulsion and a rage to confront that act as evil, regardless of the culture. Where did we get this sense of wrongness? How do we explain a universal law in the conscience of all people that says murder for fun is wrong?
And in areas like courage, dying for a cause, love, dignity, duty and compassion, where did these come from? If people are merely products of physical evolution, "survival of the fittest," why do we sacrifice for each other? Where did we get this inner sense of right and wrong? Our conscience can best be explained by a loving Creator who cares about the decisions and harmony of humanity.
My point is that someone had all of this... it was no mistake. You can read the whole article here:
http://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html
As far as there being no "proof"... well, that's the whole point. If we had proof, you wouldn't need faith, which is the whole basis of religion. I truly believe that God asks us to just believe... that's the whole test. Having proof would make it redundant.
Just food for thought. I know this won't change your mind... just don't dimiss it entirely.
ggazoo said:
Yes, Earth was formed in the right place at the right time, pure luck.
That isn't saying much since our current technology is only capable of spotting gas giants close by. A couple of hundred known planets doesn't even begin to scratch the surface.
A massive assumption that is naive at best. If you assume another mind creates the human mind, then does a higher gravity create gravity?
Poor analogy. We can pressume that Mount Rushmore was carved out of rock by humans because we have evidence of that.
Again, what does Earth's position in orbit have to do with anything? There are billions of trillions of stars in the visible universe, there are going to be planets that are in just the right place for life to be possible, it is just chance. There are no beings on pluto saying "wow God loves us" because it is too far away from the Sun...
It must be explained somewhere. It has been proven throughout the centuries that once mysterious things are one day found out to have an explanation.
Like any animals who live in society, they need to behave in a correct manner to be accepted. It can not be any man for himself, especially in complicated society like our own where rules must be followed otherwise civilisation would crumble. If we did not learn this aid, we would still be naked living in caves.
That is definetly not the best explanation. This just depends if you accept the laws of nature, or make up your own fantasy of a bearded God with a penis who feels emotions of love such as we do.
Yes, and that's all you have, faith.
Why should it bother you?, without faith in religion I've become straight, "not a drug addict." True many leave drugs, and turn to religion, which is really just another form of a drug. Something that makes them feel better.
Welcome to the board. I'm not the only atheist here BTW.
I feel for your loss. I live with an elderly lady (my mother) I know that she too will die some day. I once told her: "The dead feels nothing, the ones that truly suffer are those that they leave behind." The reason why you've come closer to your god is because it's your drug, it makes you feel better. But like any drug, too much of it, can fry your brains.
*THE EARTH
...its size is perfect. The Earth's size and corresponding gravity holds a thin layer of mostly nitrogen and oxygen gases, only extending about 50 miles above the Earth's surface. If Earth were smaller, an atmosphere would be impossible - if Earth were larger, its atmosphere would contain free hydrogen. Earth is the only known planet equipped with an atmosphere of the right mixture of gases to sustain plant, animal and human life.*
There are possibly trillions of of earth like planets in the universe. Chances are that some have evolved to sustain life as well. And the earth is not perfect for god's people either. Many christian, theists, and even atheist have died in natural disasters cased by this earth, earthquakes, tornados, hurricanes, tidal waves and all natural disasters, make it a chaotic place to live, far from perfect!
* THE HUMAN BRAIN
When NASA launches a shuttle mission, it is assumed a monkey didn't write the plan, but intelligent and knowledgeable minds. How does one explain the existence of the human brain?
Yea! aint evolution something?
*Only a mind more intelligent and knowledgeable than humanity could have created the human brain.
Only a mind more inelligent and knowledgeable than your god could have could have created your god.
You need to brush up on your evolution studies.
What evidence of this do you posses?. I on the other hand have experience of life, that human kind has no sense of right and wrong. Wars, murders, genocides of civilizations, and this was just the christians!. Our sense of justice, our sense of morals are dictated by the society we live in. It's justifiable in some religious zealots society to commit suitside & take many apponents as they can to justify their beliefs. This for them is right & just.
Manipulative emotions. The powers that be, emotionally manipulate the masses for their cause, their bidding, their moral sense, wether it is right or wrong must be defined by the individual. With a self sense of moral not one that's dictated by others.
What is redundant is to believe in ancient rhetoric writen by dessert nomads to scape their prosecussion and enslavement. Their plea was to be free, their invention of this god was the weapon to manipulate their people to fight for their cause. Commendable sure! but no dice of proving any supernatural power helped them in any way. Their promised land was not empty! they had to fight for it. A promised land should had contained no civilization prior to their arrival. I assume your speaking of the Hebrews, for these are the ones who wrote the bible and were the christian god spawned out of.
Faith and Force: The Destroyers of the Modern World
Thanks for link! I'll check it out after some very much deserved rest.
Godless
Godless said:
Thanks.. it's been a tough year. I don't buy into the whole "drug" analogy though... I'm closer to God because that's where my heart is. Being an atheist, you'll never undertsand (but at least you'll listen, which I can appreciate), so I can't explain it.
No matter what I say, you'll refute every point unless it can be proven to you, and that's fine. I just choose to belive. It's like, if I have a friend who tells me that he bought a car, I don't have to see it to believe him. He told me, so I trust him. Same principal.
Does part of me believe in hopes that I might see the people I've lost in my life again someday? Partially. But it's also the one thing that keeps me going sometimes. It's the old adage: "For those who get it, no explanation is necessary. For those who don't, no explanation will do."
KennyJC said:
That's right...and that's the whole point. You can't prove that there isn't a heaven no more than I can prove that there is.
Last edited:
You mean I won't get my 15 virgins? Damn! better take this dynamite belt off!.
If only it were that easy to convince a Zealot Muslim not to commit suicide.
I was not always an atheist. So I do understand the concept. I too have a heart, though I rather use my mind and not let my emotions judge my behavior.
That's the hole point!. One chooses. But when making a choice I rather use my mind, logic & reason. Not my appeals to the emotions of others false assumptions which lack reason. I was once a Catholic by parental indoctrination, became Christian in mid teens, and rebirth again in Babtism late teens. So I do understand the emotional implications to religiousity. That is untill life showed me otherwise. I lived under false hopes, I let my superstitious beliefs get the better of me, whent through hell on earth. After two seperate nervous breakdowns I began to re-educate myself. This time I left religion because part of my breakdown was from religious dellusion.
Godless
G
genep
Guest
Conspiracy said:
U R both heaven and god.
the thoughts called ego
is a joke
god needs to find heaven.
This is what Advaita and its Samadhi and Nirvana is all about:
U R both god and heaven.
Hmmm.. a couple of my frineds are also atheist, and they too come from a cahtolic background - might be on to something here. lol
Well, you could also be going by false assumptions as well. Check this link out - I know it won't change your mind (it lets the Bible do a lot of the heavy lifting), but it might be worth the read:
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/answers.html
... and check out "General Introduction for Non-Believers" section for starters. I would love to get your opinons on their articles, many have them support scientific reasoning and knowledge.
Godless said:
Well, you could also be going by false assumptions as well. Check this link out - I know it won't change your mind (it lets the Bible do a lot of the heavy lifting), but it might be worth the read:
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/answers.html
... and check out "General Introduction for Non-Believers" section for starters. I would love to get your opinons on their articles, many have them support scientific reasoning and knowledge.
KennyJC said:
Really... well then what about these "lonely little minds":
Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543)
Copernicus was the Polish astronomer who put forward the first mathematically based system of planets going around the sun. He attended various European universities, and became a Canon in the Catholic church in 1497. His new system was actually first presented in the Vatican gardens in 1533 before Pope Clement VII who approved, and Copernicus was urged to publish around this time. Copernicus was never under any threat of religious persecution - and was urged to publish both by Catholic Bishop Guise, Cardinal Schonberg, and the Protestant Professor George Rheticus. Copernicus referred sometimes to God in his works, and did not see his system as in conflict with the Bible.
Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)
Kepler was a brilliant mathematician and astronomer. He did early work on light, and established the laws of planetary motion about the sun. He also came close to reaching the Newtonian concept of universal gravity - well before Newton was born! His introduction of the idea of force in astronomy changed it radically in a modern direction. Kepler was an extremely sincere and pious Lutheran, whose works on astronomy contain writings about how space and the heavenly bodies represent the Trinity. Kepler suffered no persecution for his open avowal of the sun-centered system, and, indeed, was allowed as a Protestant to stay in Catholic Graz as a Professor (1595-1600) when other Protestants had been expelled!
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
Galileo is often remembered for his conflict with the Roman Catholic Church. His controversial work on the solar system was published in 1633. It had no proofs of a sun-centered system (Galileo's telescope discoveries did not indicate a moving earth) and his one "proof" based upon the tides was invalid. It ignored the correct elliptical orbits of planets published twenty five years earlier by Kepler. Since his work finished by putting the Pope's favorite argument in the mouth of the simpleton in the dialogue, the Pope (an old friend of Galileo's) was very offended. After the "trial" and being forbidden to teach the sun-centered system, Galileo did his most useful theoretical work, which was on dynamics. Galileo expressly said that the Bible cannot err, he saw his system as concerning the issue of how the Bible should be interpreted.
Rene Descartes (1596-1650)
Descartes was a French mathematician, scientist and philosopher who has been called the father of modern philosophy. His school studies made him dissatisfied with previous philosophy: He had a deep religious faith as a Catholic, which he retained to his dying day, along with a resolute, passionate desire to discover the truth. At the age of 24 he had a dream, and felt the vocational call to seek to bring knowledge together in one system of thought. His system began by asking what could be known if all else were doubted - suggesting the famous "I think therefore I am". Actually, it is often forgotten that the next step for Descartes was to establish the near certainty of the existence of God - for only if God both exists and would not want us to be deceived by our experiences can we trust our senses and logical thought processes. God is, therefore, central to his whole philosophy. What he really wanted was to see his philosophy adopted as standard Catholic teaching. Rene Descartes and Francis Bacon (1561-1626) are generally regarded as the key figures in the development of scientific methodology. Both had systems in which God was important, and both seem more devout than the average for their era.
Isaac Newton (1642-1727)
In optics, mechanics, and mathematics, Newton was a figure of undisputed genius and innovation. In all his science (including chemistry) he saw mathematics and numbers as central. What is less well known is that he was devoutly religious and saw numbers as involved in understanding from the Bible God's plan for history. He did a lot of work on biblical numerology, and, though aspects of his beliefs were not orthodox, he thought theology very important. In his system of physics, God is essential to the nature and absoluteness of space. In Principia he stated, "The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion on an intelligent and powerful Being."
Robert Boyle (1791-1867)
One of the founders and key early members of the Royal Society, Boyle gave his name to "Boyle's Law" for gasses, and also wrote an important work on chemistry. The Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "By his will he endowed a series of Boyle lectures, or sermons, which still continue, "for proving the Christian religion against notorious infidels."... As a devout Protestant, Boyle took a special interest in promoting the Christian religion abroad, giving money to translate and publish the New Testament into Irish and Turkish. In 1690 he developed his theological views in The Christian Virtuoso, which he wrote to show that the study of nature was a central religious duty." Boyle wrote against atheists in his day (the notion that atheism is a modern invention is a myth), and was clearly much more devoutly Christian than the average in his era.
Michael Faraday (1791-1867)
The son of a blacksmith who became one of the greatest scientists of the 19th century. His work on electricity and magnetism not only revolutionized physics, but has led to so much in our lifestyles today which depend on them (including computers and telephone lines and so Web sites). Faraday was a devoutly Christian member of the Sandemanians, which significantly influenced upon him and strongly affected the way in which he approached and interpreted nature. The Sandemanians originated from Presbyterians who had rejected the idea of state churches, and tried to go back to a New Testament type of Christianity.
Gregor Mendel (1822-1884)
Mendel was the first to lay the mathematical foundations of genetics, in what came to be called "Mendelianism". He began his research in 1856 (three years before Darwin published his Origin of Species) in the garden of the Monastery in which he was a monk. Mendel was elected Abbot of his Monastery in 1868. His work remained comparatively unknown until the turn of the century, when a new generation of botanists began finding similar results and "rediscovered" him (though their ideas were not identical to his). An interesting point is that the 1860's was the formation of the X-Club, dedicated to lessening religious influences and propagating an image of "conflict" between science and religion. One sympathizer was Darwin's cousin Francis Galton, whose scientific interest was in genetics (a proponent of eugenics - selective breeding among humans to "improve" the stock). He was writing how the "priestly mind" was not conducive to science whilst, at around the same time, an Austrian monk was making the breakthrough in genetics. The rediscovery of the work of Mendel came too late to affect Galton's contribution.
Kelvin (William Thomson) (1824-1907)
Kelvin was foremost among the small group of British scientists who helped to lay the foundations of modern physics. His work covered may areas of physics, and he was said to have more letters after his name than anyone else in the Commonwealth, since he received numerous honorary degrees from European Universities who recognized the value of his work. He was a very committed Christian, certainly more religious than the average for his era. Interestingly, his fellow physicists George Gabriel Stokes (1819-1903) and James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879) were also men of deep Christian commitment, in an era when many were nominal, apathetic, or anti-Christian. The Encyclopedia Britannica says "Maxwell is regarded by most modern physicists as the scientist of the 19th century who had the greatest influence on 20th century physics; he is ranked with Sir Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein for the fundamental nature of his contributions." Lord Kelvin was an Old Earth creationist, who estimated the Earth's age to be somewhere between 20 million and 100 million years, with an upper limit at 500 million years based on cooling rates (a low estimate due to his lack of knowledge about radiogenic heating).
Max Planck (1858-1947)
Planck made many contributions to physics, but is best known for quantum theory, which has revolutionized our understanding of the atomic and sub-atomic worlds. In his 1937 lecture "Religion and Naturwissenschaft," Planck expressed the view that God is everywhere present, and held that "the holiness of the unintelligible Godhead is conveyed by the holiness of symbols." Atheists, he thought, attach too much importance to what are merely symbols. Planck was a churchwarden from 1920 until his death, and believed in an almighty, all-knowing, beneficent God (though not necessarily a personal one). Both science and religion wage a "tireless battle against skepticism and dogmatism, against unbelief and superstition" with the goal "toward God!"
Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
Einstein is probably the best known and most highly revered scientist of the twentieth century, and is associated with major revolutions in our thinking about time, gravity, and the conversion of matter to energy (E=mc2). Although never coming to belief in a personal God, he recognized the impossibility of a non-created universe. The Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "Firmly denying atheism, Einstein expressed a belief in "Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of what exists." This actually motivated his interest in science, as he once remarked to a young physicist: "I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details." Einstein's famous epithet on the "uncertainty principle" was "God does not play dice" - and to him this was a real statement about a God in whom he believed. A famous saying of his was "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
I assume you are trying to make a point that smart people can also believe in a God/Heaven. That is irrelevant, although I think a poll would show atheism higher amongst the educated compared to that of rednecks from Alabama
I never said that all people are stupid if they take these different baseless fantasies as reality, although it is most certainly irrational to the highest order. A belief in a loving God and Heaven is born out of pure insecurity and fear of death, it's only purpose serves to make people feel better which would be ok if religion was not an endless source of violence and conflict which atheists have to stand by and watch.
Worth explaining that it isn't the same principal whatsoever. Religious people often do that - trying to find some sort of comparison between their belief in god and another man trusting his friend when he says he's bought a car. They aren't the same thing. What you're actually saying is this:
"It's like, if I have a friend who tells me a leprechaun lives in his garden, I don't have to see it to believe him".
That's much more accurate.
A common misconception, (or perhaps lie), on the part of religious folk. Albert Einstein was not religious, and did not believe in god:
'It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.' (Albert Einstein, 1954) From Albert Einstein: The Human Side.
It's quite funny that 50 years later and those lies are still being systematically repeated.
Copernicus was certainly an astronomer but he was not the first to speculate the heliocentric theory.
Aristarchus of Samos, often referred to as the Copernicus of antiquity, laid the foundation for much scientific examination of the heavens. According to his contemporary, Archimedes, Aristarchus was the first to propose not only a heliocentric universe, but one larger than any of the geocentric universes proposed by his predecessors. click
Aristarchus was certainly both a mathematician and astronomer and he is most celebrated as the first to propose a sun-centred universe. He is also famed for his pioneering attempt to determine the sizes and distances of the sun and moon. We shall look at these two achievements below.
Aristarchus was a student of Strato of Lampsacus, who was head of Aristotle's Lyceum. However, it is not thought that Aristarchus studied with Strato in Athens but rather that he studied with him in Alexandria. Strato became head of the Lyceum at Alexandria in 287 BC and it is thought that Aristarchus studied with him there starting his studies shortly after that date. click
Two other Italian scientists of the time, Galileo and Bruno, embraced the Copernican theory unreservedly and as a result suffered much personal injury at the hands of the powerful church inquisitors. Giordano Bruno had the audacity to even go beyond Copernicus, and, dared to suggest, that space was boundless and that the sun was and its planets were but one of any number of similar systems: Why! -- there even might be other inhabited worlds with rational beings equal or possibly superior to ourselves. For such blasphemy, Bruno was tried before the Inquisition, condemned and burned at the stake in 1600. Galileo was brought forward in 1633, and, there, in front of his "betters," he was, under the threat of torture and death, forced to his knees to renounce all belief in Copernican theories, and was thereafter sentenced to imprisonment for the remainder of his days. (same ref. as above) This does contradict your notion of Corpernicus welcome theory.
Kepler's family was Lutheran and he adhered to the Augsburg Confession a defining document for Lutheranism. However, he did not adhere to the Lutheran position on the real presence and refused to sign the Formula of Concord. Because of his refusal he was excluded from the sacrament in the Lutheran church. This and his refusal to convert to Catholicism left him alienated by both the Lutherans and the Catholics. Thus he had no refuge during the Thirty-Years War.click
Yet another scientist treated as heretic because he contradicted the church's false notions of reality.
I mentioned Galileo above.
In Holland Descartes produced a scientific work called Le Monde or The World which he was about to publish in 1634. At the point, however, he learned that Galileo had been condemned by the Church for teaching Copernicanism. Descarte s' book was Copernican to the core, and he therefore had it supressed. click
Yet another scientist that was suppresed by fear of heresey agaist an ingnorant church.
Einstein did once comment that "God does not play dice [with the universe]". This quotation is commonly mentioned to show that Einstein believed in the Christian God. Used this way, it is out of context; it refers to Einstein's refusal to accept some aspects of the most popular interpretations of quantum theory. Furthermore, Einstein's religious background was Jewish rather than Christian.
A better quotation showing what Einstein thought about God is the following:
"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings."
By his above comment Einstein was more of a deist. However he didn't set out to disprove god concept.
What made me post was the erroneous mistake most people often make, considering Copernicus. He merely worked out the theory of heliocetrism of Aristarchus.
Godless
This is probably going to be my lost post until after Christmas - I really don't want to be debating my beliefs over the holidays.
I absolutely agree - many atrocious things have been done in the name of God, even in the name of Christianity. However, these atrocities were not perpetrated by God, or religion, but by evil human beings. War was never a docturine of religion, but a choice made by mankind.
In fact, if you examine the atrocities perpetrated by atheists, you find that they have killed more people in the last century than all of the crimes of 2000 years of "church" history combined. Joseph Stalin killed 20 million Soviet citizens between 1929 and 1939 because they were not politically correct. Mao Tse-tung killed 34 to 62 million Chinese during the Chinese civil war of the 1930s and 1940s. Pol Pot, the leader of the Marxist regime in Cambodia, Kampuchea, in the 1970's killed 1.7 million of his own people. In fact, the Pol Pot regime specifically preached atheism and sought to exterminate all religious expression in Cambodia. This last example of atheist-led atrocities by itself resulted in the deaths of more people than those who were killed by 2000 years of "Christian" atrocities. Should atheism be blamed for the atrocities of a few prominent atheists?
It's unlikely that people would believe in the existence of a being who is known not to exist. For example, most of us believe in Santa Claus as small children, but give up that belief by age 10. Contary to what people on this site are saying, people do not believe in false things, even if those things make them feel better. If people routinely believed in things just to make them feel better, then we would all continue to believe in the existence of Santa Claus.
My apologies, my previous post was a little misleading. Einstein might best be described as an agnostic:
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly."
So, Einstein did not believe in a personal God. It is however, interesting how he arrived at that conclusion. In developing the theory of relativity, Einstein realized that the equations led to the conclusion that the universe had a beginning. He didn't like the idea of a beginning, because he thought one would have to conclude that the universe was created by God. So, he added a cosmological constant to the equation to attempt to get rid of the beginning. He said this was one of the worst mistakes of his life. Of course, the results of Edwin Hubble confirmed that the universe was expanding and had a beginning at some point in the past. So, as 'Godless' mentioned in his previous post, Einstein became a deist - a believer in an impersonal creator God:
"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings."
It is the second part of the quote that reveals the reason Einstein rejected the existence of a personal God. Einstein compared the remarkable design and order of the cosmos and could not reconcile those characteristics with the evil and suffering he found in human existence. How could an all-powerful God allow the suffering that exists on earth?
Einstein's failure to understand the motives of God are the result of his incorrect assumption that God intended this universe as His ultimate perfect creation. Einstein could not get past the moral problems that are present in our universe. He assumed, as most atheists do, that a personal God would only create a universe which is both good morally and perfect physically. However, according to Christianity, the purpose of the universe is not to be morally or physically perfect, but to provide a place where spiritual creatures can choose to love or reject God - to live with Him forever in a new, perfect universe, or reject Him and live apart from Him for eternity. It would not be possible to make this choice in a universe in which all moral choices are restricted to only good choices. Einstein didn't seem to understand that one could not choose between good and bad if bad did not exist.
It's amazing that such a brilliant man could not understand such a simple logical principle.
KennyJC said:
I absolutely agree - many atrocious things have been done in the name of God, even in the name of Christianity. However, these atrocities were not perpetrated by God, or religion, but by evil human beings. War was never a docturine of religion, but a choice made by mankind.
In fact, if you examine the atrocities perpetrated by atheists, you find that they have killed more people in the last century than all of the crimes of 2000 years of "church" history combined. Joseph Stalin killed 20 million Soviet citizens between 1929 and 1939 because they were not politically correct. Mao Tse-tung killed 34 to 62 million Chinese during the Chinese civil war of the 1930s and 1940s. Pol Pot, the leader of the Marxist regime in Cambodia, Kampuchea, in the 1970's killed 1.7 million of his own people. In fact, the Pol Pot regime specifically preached atheism and sought to exterminate all religious expression in Cambodia. This last example of atheist-led atrocities by itself resulted in the deaths of more people than those who were killed by 2000 years of "Christian" atrocities. Should atheism be blamed for the atrocities of a few prominent atheists?
SnakeLord said:
It's unlikely that people would believe in the existence of a being who is known not to exist. For example, most of us believe in Santa Claus as small children, but give up that belief by age 10. Contary to what people on this site are saying, people do not believe in false things, even if those things make them feel better. If people routinely believed in things just to make them feel better, then we would all continue to believe in the existence of Santa Claus.
SnakeLord said:
My apologies, my previous post was a little misleading. Einstein might best be described as an agnostic:
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly."
So, Einstein did not believe in a personal God. It is however, interesting how he arrived at that conclusion. In developing the theory of relativity, Einstein realized that the equations led to the conclusion that the universe had a beginning. He didn't like the idea of a beginning, because he thought one would have to conclude that the universe was created by God. So, he added a cosmological constant to the equation to attempt to get rid of the beginning. He said this was one of the worst mistakes of his life. Of course, the results of Edwin Hubble confirmed that the universe was expanding and had a beginning at some point in the past. So, as 'Godless' mentioned in his previous post, Einstein became a deist - a believer in an impersonal creator God:
"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings."
It is the second part of the quote that reveals the reason Einstein rejected the existence of a personal God. Einstein compared the remarkable design and order of the cosmos and could not reconcile those characteristics with the evil and suffering he found in human existence. How could an all-powerful God allow the suffering that exists on earth?
Einstein's failure to understand the motives of God are the result of his incorrect assumption that God intended this universe as His ultimate perfect creation. Einstein could not get past the moral problems that are present in our universe. He assumed, as most atheists do, that a personal God would only create a universe which is both good morally and perfect physically. However, according to Christianity, the purpose of the universe is not to be morally or physically perfect, but to provide a place where spiritual creatures can choose to love or reject God - to live with Him forever in a new, perfect universe, or reject Him and live apart from Him for eternity. It would not be possible to make this choice in a universe in which all moral choices are restricted to only good choices. Einstein didn't seem to understand that one could not choose between good and bad if bad did not exist.
It's amazing that such a brilliant man could not understand such a simple logical principle.
Although I don't really see it as being a response to my post, I will reply by stating that I find it comes down to 'seeds'.
A seed that has been planted in a child's mind might grow or wither, but will never die. So for some bizarre reason we delude our children. We make them believe that there is a fat red guy flying round the place every year. Why do we do it? We excuse ourselves under the notion that it is fun for children, and yet at the end of the day it is a lie, nothing more. With a straight face we lie to our children and get them to believe whatever we want them to.
The seed has been planted.
They then grow up and lie to their children just as we did to them. We accept it, we embrace it, we do not take a moment to actually sit down and contemplate it. We tell them santa's coming as if we ourselves believe it - and the only thing that gets in the way is the evidence, (we buy the presents).
For thousands of years, generation after generation have been seeded with the notion of gods. From millions of gods, to demi gods, to elephant headed gods to scrawny suicidal gods. It's exactly the same as santa, except we're no longer talking playstations and barbie dolls, but life and death.
By and large religious people also tend not to notice that it is indeed us humans that are 'buying the presents'. You'll see on TV someone stuck in a flood or something. Rescue crews will turn up and work day and night to save the guy. When the guy is eventually saved the nearest religious person turns round and says: "god answered my prayers and saved that guy", without ever realising that in reality the guy was actually saved by the rescue crews, not by any sky beings.
As for leprechauns, they're not generally planted in childrens minds as being real, and thus nobody ever really gives them a second thought.
The process is always the same though - we lie to our children. We bombard their fragile minds with the things we imagine, the things we dream up, the things we so much want to be true. The process then repeats itself.
Another vast misconception. It seems you have fallen victim to common religious propaganda. However, a couple of other posters have provided links so there's little need for me to explain it further.
Merry sol invictus.
Last edited:
ggazoo said:
Slavery and child beatings to name just a few 'atrocities' can all be justified by reading the bible, the same way a sucide bomber can justify his actions from holy scriptures.
Since religions consider scriptures such as these "the word of God", then by your reasoning, atrocities can be directly attributed by him.
Athiest dictatorships just like religious dictatorships are as cruel and irrational as each other. By todays standards secular democracies have a higher moral standing than that of any country with strong relgious beliefs, as the facts clearly show. Once again I am forced to say this to an ignorant fundie who can't see that the world is being dragged down by the conflict of religion wether it can be blamed directly on the "word of God" or merely by people who follow religion.
If you are not convinced that today atheism makes for a safer society then I suppose I will have to copy and paste the facts which I have had to explain 100 times everytime a fundie mentions Stalin, or that a society without God can not maintain law and order.
And why do we stop believing? Because we have evidence that presents are merely put there by our parents. Most smart people can at least use their brains and see that there is evidence most organized religions turned out to be proven false. Which really shouldn't surprised anyone since the many religions can not all be correct.
Santa does not threaten you to an eternity with Satan if you don't believe in him though does he?
Did he? What is your source for saying Einstein thought that the big bang must have meant there is a God?
All I see is you speaking on behalf of Einstein (which many theists have tried to do) without giving a source of him actually thinking this.
Again you have spouted a load of rubbish which until you provide a source for assuming all these things of Einstein, it remains bullshit. Some people don't prentend to understand the "motives of God", because no one knows. You think you know based on what other humans have written thousands of years ago. The joke is on you.
Now this is stupid. As if it is as simple as that. Follow God and you get eternal life, don't and you suck Satans cock in hell for eternity. This may be simple logic to someone as derranged as you, but it is completely baseless and irrational.
Many aspects of life are not as we wish them to be, that doesn't mean they are not true because we are uncomfortable with it, nor should people be encouraged to make up fantasies to disguise the parts of life we don't like.
fact
n.
1 Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: an account based on fact; a blur of fact and fancy.
2. a. Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed: Genetic engineering is now a fact. That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed fact.
b. A real occurrence; an event: had to prove the facts of the case.
c. Something believed to be true or real: a document laced with mistaken facts.
3. A thing that has been done, especially a crime: an accessory before the fact.