Post

Let Believers Believe

It gives me great comfort to believe that I am speck of dust in the universe, important to nobody except maybe similar specks of dust I might come into contact with.  It may be nice to think that my every thought and action is being seen and judged by God on high, that one day will be judgement day  and every one who has wronged me will be made to pay.  But I do not believe that, so I just suck up all those wrongs. I have never been able to develop the hang of believing something which directly contradicts my observations.   I am an atheist.  

Despite being an atheist though, I never cease to be bowled over by the sheer glorious magnificence of this wonderful little planet we inhabit.  Thousands of people can walk past, yet anyone of us can instantly pick out the faces of friends.  Isn't that a wonder?  Glowing sunsets can move me to tears.  I marvel at skateboarders defying gravity, at the bonds of friendship that can exist between humans and animals, at the way music can have a physical effect.  I love life, I love being alive, and I know that there is so much to see and do that if I could live ten times longer at a frantic pace I still wouldn't grasp it all.  And it is enough.  I don't require magic and miracles and life everlasting, and other people to go to hell.  I am a humble atheist
damselfly damselfly 46-50, F 13 Responses Dec 13, 2010

Your Response

Cancel

Oh, how amusing... max is recycling the same stuff that was discredited about this time last year!
"The premise that the all matter and energy began to exist 13.70 billion years ago is not a religious declaration nor a theological one. You can find this statement in any contemporary textbook on astrophysics or cosmology"
No you can't, Max... what you'll find is a statement (from evidence... yes, real evidence) that the universe began expanding 13.7 billion years ago.
So tell me, Max... how is that a "premise that all matter and energy began to exist 13.70 billion years ago"? Go on, Max... answer something honestly for once.

and we get the Borde-Vilenkin-Guth Theorem nonsense again! Wow, those were good times, Max, weren't they! You remember, don't you... when i showed how your claims about the Borde-Vilenkin-Guth Theorem are vigorously denied by Vilenkin himself. Give me a while to go and ferret it out of the archives and i'll then happily run you back through your sophistic nonsense.

You ran away from your lies then, Max... i imagine you;ll do it again this time, yes?

“The Borde-Vilenkin-Guth Theorem, for instance, proves that any universe, that has, on average, a rate of expansion greater than one ** must ** have a ** finite beginning **. I'm not making this up”
Yes you are, max. The Borde-Vilenkin-Guth Theorem postulates (not proves, Max… postulates) that almost all inflationary models of the universe (not ‘any universe’, Max… almost all inflationary models of the universe… let me emphasise… inflationary models (Other group members may like to note how Max’s changes to the original text sharply alter the meaning).

Max, before i continue, i really must point out that i've taken you through all this before, so that your repetition here of the same nonsense constitutes a deliberate and calculated litany of lies to the members of this group. Not unexpected, but disappointing nevertheless.

"It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. *** There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning”
Two paragraphs later, Vilenkin writes:
"Theologians have often welcomed any evidence for the beginning of the universe, regarding it as evidence for the existence of God… So what would we make of a proof that the beginning is unavoidable? Is it a proof of the existence of God? This view would be far too simplistic. Anyone who attempts to understand the origin of the universe should be prepared to address its logical paradoxes"
It's late here, and i need to sleep soon, but before i do, allow me to mention what Professor Vilenkin wrote shortly after the above.
"As evidenced by Jinasena’s remarks earlier in this chapter, religion is not immune to the paradoxes of Creation".
Did you skip that part when you were reading Vilenkin's book, Max? Umm, you did read it, didn't you? i mean, you added emphasis, so you're familiar with the original, yes? You're not trying to mislead us, are you?
Vilenkin brings our attention to his reference (before these two passages, to remarks by Jinasena, and tells us that they are still relevant to the creationists' claims. So, what were those remarks?
1. The doctrine that the world was created is ill-advised, and should be rejected.
2. If God created the world, where was he before creation? …
3. How could God have made the world without any raw material? If you say he made this first, and then the world, you are faced with an endless regression…
4. Thus the doctrine that the world was created by God makes no sense at all.
In future, Max, if you're going to (sort of... kind of... with just a few alterations) quote Professor Valenkin, at least have the integrity to quote all the relevant passages.
So, your lies by commission have been followed by lies of omission.

Now, where were we... oh yes, we were cleaning up Max's pseudo-intellectual furball.
Max, i see that you popped in a quote about the Steady state theory… yawn! The image of a steady and unchanging universe has been replaced, because of evidence gathered through our science, by the understanding that the universe is expanding… an expansion that began 13.7 billion years ago. Umm, yes, Max, we’ve known that for half a century… didn’t you get the memo... and so what?
Well, what do we have so far? A failure to distinguish between the existence of the universe and the expansion of the universe, a couple of misrepresentations about the Borde-Vilenkin-Guth Theorem, a complete failure to even mention the several competing theories (you mention a few straw-man musings, but you’re silent on Hawking’s no-boundary proposal… is that because it is not ruled-out by the BVG theorum?), and the startling (these days only to you, Max) fact that the universe is expanding.
From all this sophistic nonsense, you conjure up some sort of ‘necessity’ for a ‘a first uncaused-cause’, you glibly claim to have explained that this must be ‘transcendent, beginningless [sic], timeless, spaceless, immaterial, unchanging, omnipotent, personal and good’ (you have done no such thing… I remember showing you that your second assumption in that wild claim was invalid, so all that followed was invalid. Our observation of causality within the universe does not mean that causality must apply to the universe. Should i repeat that particular lesson, Max?)… and suddenly you arrive at some sort of magical agency!
Vilenkin's theory doesn't deal with quantum gravity, which is necessary to understand anything beyond the Planck Epoch, and you think that you can fix that shortcoming by inserting magical agencies?
Max, that’s too sad to be funny, and too dishonest to be excusable.

Max, i realise that, because you blocked me ages ago, you can't respond directly... but don't despair! A simple solution is to prepare your response, unblock me, quickly post your answer, and then block me again. Don't be afraid (well, no more than usual)... you'll come to no harm.
Incidentally, i see that you've now blocked xoxWesxox. Was that because of the absolute demolition-job he did last week on your quote-mining lies by omission?

4 More Responses

Thank you for being respectful with your beliefs. I am a believer in god, this is my personal thing and I don't ever try to push it on anybody else. But we ALL have a right to believe in whatever we want or have a choice not to.

Actually, isn't a universe that came from nothing, by nothing for nothing worst than magic? After all, when a magician pulls a rabbit out of his hat at least we have the rabbit and the hat!

What you propose is that our universe just "poofed" inexplicably into existence.

Like I said, what you subscribe to is worst than magic ...

I think it's wonderful. And just because I have no scientific explanation for how the universe came into being it doesn't mean there isn't an explanation waiting to be unravelled

The premise that the all matter and energy began to exist 13.70 billion years ago is not a religious declaration nor a theological one. You can find this statement in any contemporary textbook on astrophysics or cosmology. And it is supported by the vast majority of cosmologists today.

The Borde-Vilenkin-Guth Theorem, for instance, proves that any universe, that has, on average, a rate of expansion greater than one ** must ** have a ** finite beginning **. I'm not making this up. Read the paper in full or watch Vilenkin himself invalidate and impugn beginningless universe models like Eternal Inflation, Cyclic Evolution and Static Seed/Emergent Universe on youtube.

As such, Vilenkin had this to say regarding the beginning of the universe, "It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. *** There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning ***. (Many Worlds in One [New York: Hill and Wang, 2006], p.176) (Emphasis mine.)

As Theoretical Physicist and Cosmologist Stephen Hawking put it, “the final nail in the coffin of the Steady State theory came with the discovery of the microwave background radiation, in 1965.”

Emphatically, then, your fervent belief that the universe is infinitely old, beginningless, or eternal has no basis in any respected mainstream scientific theories of the universe. It's just more atheistic amphigory and wishful thinking.

This creates the necessity for a first uncaused-cause. After all, something cannot come from nothing as I've already shared. I've also explained that this first uncaused efficient cause must also, by necessity, be transcendent, beginningless, timeless, spaceless, immaterial, unchanging, omnipotent, personal and good. As it turns out, such is the very definition of God.

So where is it inaccurate, I ask again, you don't know because you haven't read it and wasnt there so you really don't know. I love the fact when intelligent scientist state the facts that are in the bible to be true it is discarded but when the opposite happens it is the truth. It is ok to say I don't know everything but believe this or that but the question I ask is this I have been wrong many times but believed I was right how bout you or have you always been right? I have my doubts in the past but never again, does that make me right, I hope so and I believe with all I have, and if I am wrong so what I lived an honorable life loving people, helping people, and believed in something bigger than myself . Thanks for your comments.

believing in something bigger than yourself is easy - there's plenty of that. It's believing what directly contradicts my observations that's the obstacle. Plus I really don't like the idea of a God who's gonna send me to hell and torture me through all eternity when I'm dead, for the sin of not believing. Atheists tend on the whole to be honourable and helpful. I can only go by my own experience but all the religious people I've known without exception believe it's ok to do some pretty nasty things because they believe God will forgive them. My conclusion - again based on only my own experience and I'm not pushing it on anyone else - is that really religious, the Bible thumping, may-you-burn-in-hell! God-fearing people, have underdeveloped consciences. They realise there's something not quite right about themselves so they install God into their lives and it works for them. But then they're frightened that people who don't have God must be dangerous psychopaths rather than just the normal, rational and good people they aspire to be. However it's only my opinion

well said

thank you

That was well said, thank you/ Ghandi once said that he would consider being a Christian if it wasn't for Christians... I read somewhere he said but I dont know really, but it was a great point. We are not very good examples to say the least. I personally have a hard time at times telling the difference between believers and non-believers, in your case it seems to be easy Christians are the worse of the two, I'm sorry that is not the example of Jesus and is not what is expected of His followers, not because we have to be but because we should behave in such a way that our life would honor He that we call Savior. You sound very interesting and intelligent. The Bible teaches that you would know believers by their fruit, not perfect but different. So many times the believer is living in their own power and unable to stand the trials of the day. Most people come to Jesus broken and no other way to turn, Jesus said I came for the sick, poor the wretched, he also came for the blessed but they dont need as much. I do believe that my sins have been covered by the blood of Jesus, the only perfect man that ever walked on this earth, but that is my opinion. The Bible made me believe that we were all born in sin and all have sin and fell short. I have been given the faith to believe that God made a way for me spend eternity with him. I am a sorry example of Christ I am sorry and disgusted with myself for that fact, but dont judge Christianity by Christians but by Christ. I have many agnostic friends a few athestic friends, had my doubts myself but no more. Much I don't understand but I cant begin to understand the mysteries of the universe. Thanks again for not going for the carotid artery but instead being civil and having a nice conversation about opinions and life experiences.

Ah, well of course, Jesus was never a Christian. He was a nice Jewish boy

2 More Responses

Then I invite you to give up your yiddish preference for the bald penis. If there is no God, then God cannot have commanded bris.

I believe in God, because otherwise the laws of physics are the Mother of All Just-So Stories. I rather doubt the Old Testament God. And I have grave doubts about any soul with an afterlife.

Our planet and the creatures on its surface are marvelous. We may be the most privileged spot in the entire Milky Way.

I have had many conversations with atheists and we get along just fine even though we have vast differences .We just agree to disagree.God does take credit in the Bible for those beautiful sun rises,sunsets,the earth,the universe and all humans.Albert Einstein was an atheist but even he said there had to be an intelligent creator because of the complexities of the what is all around us.

I enjoy friendly conversations about life,creation or none of that but I don't get into arguments about it.If someone has a different opinion I accept it and just move along.Thanks for sharing.

Oh, well if Albert Einstein said there must be an intelligent creator, then there must be, huh?

He was considered the smartest man ever.No one understood the things he did.I would say yes he was right in saying what he aid.

I wonder if he would have considered that a reasonable basis for believing?

I wish I knew but we will never know what he wondered unless...God resurrects him on the day of the resurrection then if we are around we could ask him.

In 1905-06, Einstein published 3 papers that changed the human condition forever, on special relativity, Brownian motion, and radiation as streams of photons that interact with electrons. He then worked very hard for 9 years devising general relativity. When he died in 1955, empirical confirmation of GR was still weak (it's now strongly confirmed).

Physicists whose reputations rival Einstein's are Dirac and Feynman. Einstein himself rightly revered Maxwell.

My vote for the smartest person ever is Leibniz. Leibniz said he believed in God, but couldn't be bothered to attend church. And when Leibniz debated Spinoza, I suspect that Spinoza emerged with the upper hand.

Well you see some of the smartest humans believed in God but when someone does not it doesn't affect me.I have no problem in how any one believes.I like how I believe and will continue to and I am 100% sure nothing will change my point of view.

nmtrdr33; "he [Albert Einstein] said there had to be an intelligent creator"
“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)
unbounded admiration for the structure of the world ≠ intelligent creator

4 More Responses

The thing about life is, everyone experiences both good and bad, and everyone is capable of good and evil. None of us is exempt from this rule. Life is yin and yang, as it should be. If life was good all the time we wouldn't know to appreciate it when it is good.

Check out www.iheu.org, something up your street based in the UK

thank you

That is the mindset of a good atheist. Wish no evil even to your worst enemy.

My bugbear is with doorstep Christians, very presumptuous people who imagine their way is the only way, and that gives them the right to interrupt your day with their unstoppable fanatical waffle. If God has spoken to them that's fine by me. But God hasn't spoken personally to me and maybe there's a good reason for that! LOL

Start believing in the Devil and that devil starts speaking to you, be rational and rationality enlightens you.

Wickey...brilliant!

great,god has not answered anybody yet

Thank you so much and pardon me since I saw it only today.

Terminal communication failure

3 More Responses

A great story!



I don't need the magic either, what a shame that I'm the first atheist to comment! I wonder what the others are doing in this group?

Actually, isn't a universe that came from nothing, by nothing for nothing worst than magic? After all, when a magician pulls a rabbit out of his hat at least we have the rabbit and the hat!

What you propose is that our universe just "poofed" inexplicably into existence.

Like I said, what you subscribe to is worst than magic ...

You are amazing. Let believers believe. That is great. I am a christian. I know that the Lord has saved my life. He has given me eternal life. But He has saved me. I should be dead. Or in prison. My Lord.

If you can't see that it is chance you need the magic. There's nothing wrong with that

I am not an atheist but stil believe i am not much more than a speck of dust that was molded for the existance to glorify a creator, not something I do very well. I just look around and can't logically think that allof this is by chance, by accident. I look at a building and know that there was a designer and builder even though I have never seen them, like the Aztec must have existed. I cant figure how our bodies just happen to adapt to our environment and seem to get weaker daily why dont w get stronger. Why do we have a conscience and how come we prgressed and dogs didn't. Lots of questions. How come we can't prove the Bible false historically. to me not to believe in God requires me to believe in a huge miracle the existance of humans and their struggles. So if I look at a tree or a baby and I wonder who is the creator. I have reasoned this death but in the end to me it jsut makes more sense, but I have talked to many who are just the opposite. I don't need the magic I just search for the truth.......... Live life to the fullest and to each search for the end is only a breath.

Where has the bible been proven inaccurate?

Oh come on -it's been proven inaccurate by just about every serious historian and archaeologist who has ever investigated. Even the Catholic Church concedes that