Experience Project iOS Android Apps | Download EP for your Mobile Device

Born Again Atheist

I was brought up in a christian house, I went to church every sunday with sunday school, and youth camps and everything. I even did that whole thing where you stand up in front of the whole church and ask to be saved. That night me and my dad sat in my room, and prayed to god to save my soul. Pretty laughable if I think about it now.
There came a time in my life, about 15 years ago or so, when I just stopped lying to myself. I was in church, and everyone was singing and saying things to someone, who I realized, I couldn't even see.
That was the day I was struck with a blinding realization...god didn't create man, man created god. I have been a born again athiest ever since then, and never looked back.
TCat TCat 26-30, M 107 Responses Jun 8, 2007

Your Response


no no no the devils just got you by the balls thats all.. lol


Yup, that's me. I absolutely hate having my views challenged which is why I take the time to respectfully impugn these and vindicate my own (in THE most inhospitable and venomous forum in EP, no less) ...

Yeah I know, this is out of place in the thread, not my fault, Max blocked me. Because he does not ;like it when people challenge him. Poor thing.

In response to

The assumption that an observer somehow interacts with the photons fired through a double slit was experimentally refuted in 1999 with the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment.

Go to

And from that page"
Comment: To the physicist, the results "are all consistent with prediction." To the layperson, the results should be shocking. Let us review the course of the experiment as it unfolds, beginning when the incoming photon from the laser generates an entangled pair at the crystal.

Max is a lay person. He is shocked. When shocked he goes: "therefore god"

Max: "THE most inhospitable and venomous forum in EP"
Too funny!
Show Max that the stuff he copy-pastes is in error ie. challenge his views... and you'll be blocked.
When he blocked me waaaaaaay back in the mists of time, apparently it was because i 'wasn't interested in having a real discussion' (that came from Jena).
Max, who simply regurgitates whatever his indoctrinators feed him, and then becomes unresponsive when cornered.
Max, who simply starts a new topic whenever the sophistic nonsense he copy-pastes is exposed.
Max, who squirts clouds of copy-pasted ink before scurrying away from a discussion when his nonsensical pap is exposed for what it is.
Max... who always tries to start any thread so that those he has blocked can't respond to him directly (that rather speaks to character, i feel).
Max, who has required, and abused, more tolerance from the members of this group than any proselytising troll has a right to even hope for.

This is the man who apparently said that i 'wasn't interested in having a real discussion' .

Run along, Max

At Max: That's right: I challenged your views, and you ran away. Thank you for admitting that.

Max, we all know that it wasn't P245's 'attitude' that caused you to run away from him.
Running away from your own mess is one thing, but trying to blame someone else for it is just despicable.

Actually, it's astonishing that you wrote to P245: "Exactly the attitude that got you banned in the first place"
From what?
Certainly not from this group, of which he's a sincere and honest member,
Certainly not from those stories in this group that were written by sincere and honest members.
So, banned from what, Max?
Oh, did you mean 'blocked'?
Blocked from responding directly to a proselytising troll who dishonestly and cravenly spams the stories of the sincere and honest members of this group?
Hmm, as i said, Max, i don't think it was his attitude that led you to do that... i think it was part of your constant attempts to mask the emptiness of your postings.
Too late!


"Max - the loser who blocks people who challenge his views"

Exactly the attitude that got you banned in the first place.

The assumption that an observer somehow interacts with the photons fired through a double slit was experimentally refuted in 1999 with the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment.

An observation is necessarily an interaction.

The effect of the observation constrains the histories of the components of the interaction to those that are consistent with the observation. If the observation is lost (the quantum eraser), the histories are no longer constrained.

Another (functionally equivalent) way of looking at the situation is to consider that the superposition of states never goes away. Instead, you, the observer, have "joined" the superposition and there are now two versions of you. Each version would perceive a different outcome, and perceive that outcome as though it were classical in nature, as if the superposition collapsed.

Max - the loser who blocks people who challenge his views says:


Wait, Merriam-Webster doesn't know what logic or logical means?"

And then


Please explain how I've misunderstood a definition quoted from Merriam-Webster?

It would seem, rather, that you're simply misapprehending Merriam-Webster's definition and its applications."

And then


More like,

"Electrons don't follow a logical path. It changes when you're not looking. That's illogical!"

Well Max, I checked the dictionary, and it does not say anything about paths.

Now, scientifically, it is not the act of looking that changes the path of the electron, it is the fact that it interacts with something - and, of course, the observer is one example of something.

FAILED, again.

i have a hunch that Max thinks 'observing' means 'a person looking at the electron with an eye'... no, seriously!

I'm sure he does. That's probably why he referred to this article. The non-scientist will see the sexy headlines and go "go enough for me!" and therefore god.

We could eventually have an extraordinary situation where all the bona fide members of this group have been blocked by a proselytising troll! lol!

i rather think that Fastolfe will be next...

Yeah, he might be next. Unbelievable.

Well, Max has blocked me. Yeah!

OK, here is someone - Max, who comes to an atheist forum, trolls the heck out of it, and basically ends up saying "prove that my imaginary friend in the sky does not exist, do not challenge my belief, or else I'll block you."

This make Max a first class pathetic loser.

Max has a tough time understanding that non-believers do not need to prove that god does not exist. That much has been proven over and over as I and others have explained it to him at length.

This makes Max an intellectual midget.

Max seems to spend a lot more time looking up fancy words - I presume he gets his money worth out of the thesaurus. In spite of that, there is not substance to his claims.

This makes Max a pedantic ***.

Max requires, even demands proof - I say proof - of the non existence of god while all we ask for for is evidence - some evidence, something.

This makes Max intellectually dishonest.

Max does not understand the concept of answering question. One example out of many, when asked what makes quantum illogical all we get in return is "it's illogical" or "is the dictionary wrong?"

This makes Max a pain in the ***, and an idiot.

Makes makes claims that have little or nothing to do with the argument. One example out of many "Light has no mass but yet it exist".

This makes Max a manipulative creep.

Next time the JW come a-ringing on my doorbell, I'll think of Max.

The next time someone says 'jehovah's witness' to you, just remember max, and remember also that there was once a time when theists ruled everything and belief in gods was mandatory... that time was called the Dark Ages - characterised by unprecedented misery, ignorance, confusion, and suffering

I blocked Max a couple of months ago. I see him on other posts and still get headaches. Fancy words don't mean brains.

i have posted a story at:
that might provide pleasant and productive diversion from Max's trivia

Thank you for starting that other thread.

1 More Response

@ Max
You claim "Actually those bizarre results are the very antithesis of a predictable "interrelation or sequence of facts or events", hence they're illogical.

This is why quantum mechanics concerns itself with the probability of events, not their perfect prediction: (same useless link as before)"

Again, you have FAILED to tell what specifically in quantum breaks the rules of logic. The results are bizarre, indeed, but that does not make them illogical. Quantum mechanics is indeed probabilistic, but "perfection" is a subjective term. You don't like it, well, I got news, nature does not care whether you like it or not. That's just the way things are. The laws of quantum are quite surprising the first time we learn them - even later I guess, and one has a really hard time figuring out a way one could have anticipated the laws to be the way they are. But, at the end of the day, if your apply the laws FOLLOWING LOGIC (yes, I'm yelling at you) and FOLLOWING MATH (yes yelling again) they do describe what is observed.

Still waiting...

@ Max

Again, you are not getting it. It is not up to us to tell you what you beliefs are ground in, that is your job. But, to answer, your beliefs are just that, beliefs. And yes, that is what theists do, as they are unable to provide evidence for their claim, while non theists reserve judgment and adopt provisionally the default position.


If, as you claim, my "beliefs are not grounded in reason" what are they grounded in?

Beliefs generally arise from what "feels" true, whatever convinces you that they're true. Conviction in a belief does not require rationality.

Does this apply to you as well or just theists?

I think this is just human nature. People believe things they're sufficiently convinced of, where "sufficiently convinced" is a personal notion.

And if I may preempt your next reply, please note that I said "does not require rationality" not "is never rational". Some set of people are more able to recognize and practice rationality than others. Some independent set of people are more interested in centering their beliefs around rationality than others. The two sets are not the same, meaning some people desire to have rational beliefs but are unable to realize that they're failing at it.

And, in your opinion, belief in God is irrational, yes? (at least that's what you've impressed upon me)

Yes. But not because I "know" it's true, but because every rational argument presented has relied on at least one logical fallacy or presupposition that itself has no evidence. I am grateful to you for all of your attempts because if this is the best of the "please copy-paste these talking points to offer the best rational argument" your religion has to offer, and its so easy to see where the fallacy is needed to accept them as truth, I am increasingly confident in the inference that the evidence simply does not exist.

2 More Responses

I think, I am not sure, but I think I may have been blocked by Max. I don't believe I have been blocked by any one before, but I don't see the "reply" to his post. Is that what that means?

If you can find a thread that wasn't started by Max (good luck with that), but which contains one of his comments, try to reply to the comment. If it tells you that you are not allowed to reply to the comment then yes, you have been blocked.
Have you frightened Max too?

The best way to give max pause is to start a reply in a new thread, as he does. He'll immediately avoid answering, because if he can't control the thread then there's too much risk that others will be able to directly expose his nonsense for what it is.
Two things Max fears: honest debate and the understanding that follows knowledge

It's actually incredibly arrogant and reprehensible... max comes into a group to which he is inherently opposed, plasters comments throughout the stories in that group, and blocks sincere members of that group when they reply to his spam.
On the upside... he really is doing a wonderful job of spreading atheism :-)

(Incidentally, max, you're misusing the term 'apophenia')


Actually those bizarre results are the very antithesis of a predictable "interrelation or sequence of facts or events", hence they're illogical.

This is why quantum mechanics concerns itself with the probability of events, not their perfect prediction:

See, I knew once I got it out of you you'd demonstrate that you have no idea what the word "logical" actually means. I'll add that to the list, thanks.

Wait, Merriam-Webster doesn't know what logic or logical means?

No, the dictionary has it right, you're just really bad at comprehending what you're reading and applying it to the situation at hand.

Data are not logical or illogical. The theory advanced to explain the data could be. It is the theory that leads to the "prediction" that is such a fundamental part of the definition you're trying to advance. It has nothing to do with the experiment or its results. Neither data nor experiments "predict".

Again, you seem to think "logical" means something like "believable" or "something that I would expect/predict". I understand how reading that definition from the dictionary without fully understanding it that you might think it actually proves your point, but it doesn't.

Yeah, especially since I was quoting Merriam-Webster ...

See, now I don't think you're reading at all.

Please explain how I've misunderstood a definition quoted from Merriam-Webster?

It would seem, rather, that you're simply misapprehending Merriam-Webster's definition and its applications.

Yes, where a disagreement occurs, a belief that the other person has it wrong logically follows from a belief that you have it right. See what I did there?

"The path of that electron did not follow the straight line that I predicted! That's illogical!" <-- Wrong.

More like,

"Electrons don't follow a logical path. It changes when you're not looking. That's illogical!"

I'm going to decline arguing about definitions further for now. I invite you to poke through some other dictionaries and see if you can't find a common theme that might give you cause to reinterpret what you've read in Merriam-Webster.

6 More Responses


And Kylie's bigoted acrimony makes you all warm and fuzzy ... gimme a break ...

I just have to ask... You say you were struck with a blinding realization that man created God. I'm going to be honest with you. I don't think there's a Christian out there who hasn't had doubts, but what makes you so certain? I assume you did a lot of research and studying before reaching this conclusion. Would you care to share?

The default position isn't that there are gods... the default position is that gods are unnecessary (there's nothing known about the universe that requires us to postulate gods)... and any research and study would result in moving away from this position if, and only if, it produced evidence that compelled one to do so.

Max: "out of nothing ... nothing comes"
Out of nothing comes nothing... including the gods.
Your assertion simply removes the problem one stage, and thereby merely inserts an unhelpful complication while explaining nothing.
if you're going to claim that the gods always existed, why not simply cut out the middleman and say that the universe always existed?

Which, of course, leads right back to the default position

So, Max, we're agreed that there's no need for a middleman?

Max: "Because the universe is 13.70 billion years old"
No Max - the universe began expanding about 14 billion years ago... that's no necessarily when it came into existence. So, it's quite valid to say that the universe has always existed.

and so your 'necessity for a first uncaused-cause" isn't actually a necessity... it's just theistic folderol

Actually, the default position is that out of nothing (no relations, no state of affairs, no properties, or simply put, no anything) nothing comes. From this, God's necessary existence is quite easily extrapolated.

Because the universe is 13.70 billion years old. As such, the 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 folderol 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.

"This creates the necessity for a first uncaused-cause"

As discussed in your earlier stories about this, this presumes a great deal of knowledge about the moment of creation that we don't know is true, including that the creation event is occurring within a higher dimensional framework that includes a time-like dimension (time is necessary for causality to be a meaningful concept).

At the time, you responded by saying it was necessary for me (or whoever you were responding to) to prove that physics at the moment of creation *weren't* as you presumed they were, a notion which I reject.

At best, you can *infer* that causality works the same way and that therefore a cause *probably* exists, but your presumption of knowledge at the moment of creation means you cannot reasonably say this is true by "necessity". It's true because you *feel* it's true but cannot provide any evidence that it (the presupposition) *is* true.

The "default position"? As defined by whom?

As for the postulation that everything must have a beginning... That is only true of a strictly natural entity. If a being existed outside of "nature", it would not be bound by the rules of "nature". A god would necessarily be supernatural and therefore would not be bound by your rule that everything must have a beginning.

7 More Responses

@Kylie<br />
<br />
Sweetie, don't be mad 'cause I'm making you elevate the quality of your discourse. You should, instead, be grateful you're learning how to express yourself like an intelligent human being ... finally :*<br />
<br />

Max, that's the kind of remark that I'd expect from an immature middle schooler. You are not helping your cause.

An agnostic atheist is a hop, skip and a jump from theism :)


a. Argumentum verbosium. Select two or three prophecies and try again.

b. Prove it's mere apophenia.

c. Not to beat a dead horse or anything but, since you seem unaware ...

It is beyond human ability to accurately predict specific future historical events dozens or hundreds of years before they happen again and again and again and again and again and again.

Bye, by null hypothesis ...

d. All addressed and facilely refuted here:

a. That page has a bulleted list. Just because there are many examples of prophecies held by their believers to have come true does not make it an argument from verbosity. My goal is not to mislead you by overwhelming you with information, my goal is to demonstrate that Christianity is not unique in believing that they have prophecies that are of divine origin. Since this is a crucial part of your belief that the Bible must be divine, which in turn is offered as proof in the existence of God, I'm looking for you to provide some reason why I cannot apply the same rationale to the "divine" books of other religions that also have prophecies that seem to have come true.

No doubt you could look at some of these and come up with all sorts of reasons why the prophecy is untrustworthy. I'm interested in what happens if you try to apply the same rationale to your own religion's prophecies.

b. If your goal is to prove the existence of God by way of the divinity in the Bible, by way of the truth of its prophecies, shouldn't you have the burden of proof here? Otherwise I'm quite happy with the default (Atheist) position: lack of belief.

c. You don't seem to realize that the very premise of your statement is one of the points under debate: whether the prophecies in question are actually predictions.

d. All addressed and facilely refuted here:

a. Your burden was to prove their accuracy the way I have done with the Bible's prophecies. As such, my charge of argumentum verbosium is valid. Select a few of those prophecies you claim were accurately fulfilled and try again.

b. Why? So that I can see more of your hand waving claims of apophenia? You're making the claim. Prove it's apophenia.

c. See b.

d. See c.

a. Well, you know I don't think any of the prophecies are real/true, so why would I endeavor to write a long wordy essay in the style of Max (full of logical fallacies) about any of them? My question was really whether or not you would treat them with the same acceptance criteria you apply to Christian prophecy.

b. Can you point me to where I made the claim, because I think you're just inventing a claim to shift the burden of proof, much like you did with Atheism before I think we finally got you straightened out. I see lots of things like "Would you not consider the possibility" in my statements here, but that's about it. I guess the answer is "no"?

a. If you can't expatiate your question then it's meaningless. I don't know what you're asking.

b. You don't remember saying "More "but if you interpret things in such-and-such a way, it looks true!""? You're accusing me of apophenia.

a. If you were presented with evidence of a prophecy in another religion's Book that "came true" (i.e., has equal historical evidence to any of the prophecies in the Christian bible that you accept), would you acknowledge that that other religion's Book must be divine? If so, and if that book also contains something that clearly defies the Christian view, how would you reconcile that difference?

I predicted that you would say such a situation is impossible, and given the rat's nest of circularity, suspension of disbelief and other problems with your previous expositions on Christian prophecy, I'm inclined to believe you would never be able to rationalize another religion's prophecies the way you've done with your own.

b. "I have evidence for X! Here it is: ..." "Your evidence sounds a lot like a subjective viewpoint." "That means you claim I'm making X up!" No. A rejection of evidence for X is not a claim that X is false.

My goal here is not to advance evidence that your beliefs are wrong. It's to show you that your beliefs are not grounded in reason. It's OK for you to believe what you want to believe, just don't come into an Atheist forum armed only with a mastery of debate tactics, logical fallacies and a dictionary, claiming truth from a sound, valid line of reasoning, without actually understanding the basic concepts of reason and science which are the very foundation of many atheist philosophies.

It is not irrational for someone to hold an irrational belief. Just let it go and accept your belief system for what it is.

2 More Responses

So, Max, you won't enter into discussion with P245. Will you block him as you block me and others who shine light into the dark corners of your unsupported claims, your misrepresentations, and your outright nonsense?
Or will you just run away as usual and look for another story to infect?
it's instructive to read through the questions you were asked on this story alone, and to collate the evasive or non-responsive manner in which you reacted to them.
Max, have you ever considered that deliberately wasting other people's time is totally unethical... or do your personal faith-fantasies excuse you from such 'mundane' considerations?

Hello kylie. Yes, Max's usual behaviour is to block someone, and then to always be the one to start a new thread, so that the people he has blocked can't comment on the thread directly... of course, it's just cowardice, as is his penchant for abandoning a thread when someone shows Max's claims to be nothing more than vacuous pap

Well, Max has his uses, Kylie. For example, i have two female relatives (one 17 and the other 18 years old) who have been reading Max's postings (more precisely, the postings in reply from such thoughtful correspondents as OrdinaryGuy, P245, and Fastolfe). In that time they have gone from being agnostic theists tending towards gnostic theists to now stating, firmly and happily, that they are agnostic atheists.
It is wonderful that they have been saved from a life spoiled by delusion and superstition, and i freely acknowledge that it was Max who acted as a catalyst for that result. So, as i said, he has his uses (i rather imagine that those two are not the only ones who have been enlightened in this way).
Two less of them - two more of us! :-)

When Max says:
"Argumentum ad lapidem. You've done nothing to dispel the argument presented nor the facts that support it. Try again"
the meaning is "I have a list of latin phrases. I presented no coherent argument. I offered no facts. I will now ignore the entire thread and start a new thread (from which I will eventually hide... yet again)"
How tediously predictable!

Max: "The observed vs. unobserved results of double slit experiments are illogical ... but true"
"...the type of scattering an electron undergoes determines the mark it leaves on the back wall, and that a detector at one of the slits can change the type of scattering.
Stefano Frabboni, Gian Carlo Gazzadi, and Giulio Pozzi. “Ion and electron beam nanofabrication of the which-way double-slit experiment in a transmission electron microscope.”
Applied Physics Letters 97, 263101 (2010).
Well, yes, that sounds, umm... logical

Max, once i would have hesitated to point out something so basic, but now i know better, so i'll just remind(?) you that in actual double slit experiments there is always a physical mechanism involved in making the observation; these experiments have nothing to do with consciousness, i.e. it doesn't matter whether or not someone in the lab is actively watching


The observed vs. unobserved results of double slit experiments are illogical ... but true.

Max, repeating is not justifying. Here is what is going on:

Max: quantum mechanics is not logical.
Me: no it's not. What law of logic does it break?
Max: the double slit experiment is not logical.

If you say "blah blah blah is not logical" you are merely repeating yourself. What is it about it that is not logical. And, again, do not confuse illogical with unexpected.

Argumentum ad lapidem. You've done nothing to dispel the argument presented nor the facts that support it. Try again.

Still waiting. Specifically, what is illogical about quantum?

And what would your argument be? Saying the quantum is illogical but true is not an argument. Argument has a premise, a conclusion, a a description of how the premise leads to the conclusion. You offered none of that.

Apologies. I thought I was addressing one who was familiar with the nuances of quantum mechanics:

Still waiting....

Max, talking about knowing quantum. Your source is popular science writing, which is not without value, but hardly makes you a expert. Try this:, read through volume 1and 2, and do many of the end of the chapter problems. I did. That does not make me a world expert, but it's better what you got.

I think, once again, this can be explained by a difference in definitions. Here you seem to be using "illogical" to mean "inconsistent with what we previously understood."

It's as if you grew up learning something (such as the nature of light), and then cemented that understanding in your mind and refuse to acknowledge that we as a society continue to learn new things and invalidate things we once believed to be true. There's nothing "illogical" about the double-slit experiment, but it is counter-intuitive and inconsistent with the way we viewed the universe before the arrival of quantum mechanics. The world has moved on and accepted quantum mechanics as a more accurate model of the universe, but you are seemingly stuck because the pre-quantum mechanics model is what you grew up with, and you don't let go of childhood learnings easily. This probably contributes to your stalwart adherence to your religious beliefs as well.

Experimental data can not be "logical" or "illogical". Please find a more appropriate word.

Exactly, well said.


You misapprehend. The experiment is perfectly logical. The observed vs. unobserved results, on the other hand, are not.

Still waiting...

So that we're clear:
1. Please define "results" in your statement. Do you mean "data" or "an argument making some conclusion derived from the data" or something else?
2. What is an "unobserved result", or do you mean "the results, including that which we observed and that which we expected to observe but did not" or something else?
3. Please define "logical". Do you mean "a valid line of reasoning" or something else?


What happens to the results of a double slit experiment when one tries, for example, to observe a beam of electrons passing through them?

They get recorded and become data.

You didn't answer any of my questions, which I believe are fundamental to understanding how we seem to be miscommunicating.

I'm well aware of the double-slit experiment, and ones with even more bizarre results like the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment. I find the theories and interpretations of quantum mechanics quite logical and the results entirely consistent with any of them. What point are you trying to make here?

You're still avoiding defining the words that I suspect we're using differently, such as "result" and "logical". You appear to be using them in an unexpected way (suggesting data must be "logical" for it to be acceptable) and I'd like to better understand your point by better understanding what you mean when you use these words.

Max, I understand the value of rhetorical questions, but at some point, you need to go past that. Asking others questions is not the same as presenting an argument.

Still waiting for what, specifically, breaks the rules of logic in quantum. Remember that not meeting your a priory expectations is not per se illogical.

Keep in my mind that the longer you wait to make your point, the weaker your argument gets.


Which is why you need to prove your claims here and throughout EP that God does not exist.

Last chance ...

Still waiting. The fact you are ignoring that you have the burden of proof is not unnoticed. Your failure to provide proof of the existence of god is additional evidence that it does not exist.

We are still waiting for what, specifically is illogical (and not merely surprising) about quantum.

We are still waiting for what the mass of light has to do with the existence of god.

Still waiting...

15 More Responses

Interesting views, but they do seem pretty uniform were atheist are concerned. You should probably sit on it for a little while. I know quite a few atheist and some of them have very interesting beliefs of how religion came to be. Whatever the case you are entitled to believe what you want to. I am religious and I have studied Christianity, Islam, and Judaism quite a bit. You get an interesting perspective on things when you look at then from a broader picture.

spellckeck brokken? AtheistS theM

Hey Max, when you have a moment, can you tell us what the mass of light - or lack thereof - has to do with atheism? Should we worry about the mass of the neutrino too?

Well, Max, I will write down your point for you, then state why that point is a sad attempt at converting the unbeliever.

Here is what you wrote: "Photons have no mass, take up no space and cannot remain in a stationary state. Does this make light an abstract concept? Why or why not?"

The implied, but unstated, point is that there is this thing out there - the photon - that has weird proprieties, like its lack of mass. And yet that thing is very much real; rather than just abstract. Therefore, god, which also is described has having weird properties, (timeless? Mass less? etc.) can, (or is it must? ), be real as well. Perfect example of a leading question.

The proper way way to look at this is that there are many things that we know are out there. There are several ways those things manifest themselves.

Photons do exist, they have no mass and no electric charge, but they have (among other things) momentum (which we detect through collisions as in the Compton effect) and energy, we we observe in the photoelectric effect..

Protons have plenty of mass (which can can measure as weight for example) and charge.

Neutron. Neutrons have as much charge as protons, but no charge, which made them harder to detect than protons, but we did discover them, albeit several decades after the proton.

My point is that everything we know to exist has *something* by which we can interact with them. Of all the things we know (charge, mass, spin, momentum, etc.) all real things have at least one - that's how we know that they're out there.

Now let's talk about god. What does if have? That is has no mass is not a problem. That it has no electric charge is not a problem. That it has no spacial extent is not problem. The problem is that god has NOTHING.

This comes back to who has a burden of proof. If someone tried to prove that the neutron did not exist but pointing out that it has not charge, of course the reply is that the lack of charge of the neutron is not proof of non-existence of the neutron because the neutron has something (like mass). Likewise, no one is saying god does not exist because it has no mass, or no spacial extent. What atheists are asking is: what does god have? All we get in return is a mix of stories from old books, tales of things that look a lot like hallucinations, "you just have to believe" statements, "why are you angry?", "some brutal dictator did not believe", but nothing serious.

Hey Max, don't forget to let us when you find an example of something in quantum mechanics that breaks the rules of logic. Again, breaking the rules of logic is not the same as being surprising or counter intuitive. I am asking because I did study quantum. It has a set of laws (Pauli's exclusion principle, Schrodinger's equation, etc). One can apply those laws to correctly model what is observed, and make testable predictions. Besides the fact that they have stood up to scrutiny, surprising as they are, those laws are self consistent, and if you work out the math, they are right on. So, if you found them to break the rules of logic, you are onto something really big, the kind of thing that would make you, if you right, a famous scientist. I want to know about it.

Sure, as soon as you finish supplying evidence for your extraordinary claim that God does not nor cannot exist.

Max, are you dumb or are you playing dumb? I do not have to provide proof that god does not exist, YOU have to prove that it does. How many times do I have to say it until it clicks?

You're the dummy who claims here and throughout EP that God does not exist. All I'm asking is that you prove your extraordinary claim.

Your are the one claiming that god exists. In spite of your claims, you yet yet to bring any evidence.

In the absence of evidence for god, I will not believe in it.
In the absence of evidence or god after centuries of searching, I'd say we have case that it in fact does not exists - unless, at long last last, someone find something.

By the way, did I get your point right vis a vis the mass of light?

Oh, when you have time, tell us what specifically what you think is illogical (not surprising or counter intuitive but illogical) in quantum? And please don't waste internet space but just repeating yourself.

You're a hypocrite. You celebrate evidence but, when pressed to produce evidence for your outlandish claim here and everywhere else on EP that God does not exist, you suddenly become blind, deaf and dumb.

So, until you recover from your noetical bigotry and produce compelling evidence for your bizarre claim we have nothing more to discuss.

Still waiting for evidence in support of your claim that god exists. Nice try with the name calling and with shifting of the burden. Remember, you are the one with the claim.

Oh, by the way, when you have a minute, tell us more about the mass of light and what that has to do with atheism, or did I nail it with earlier post?

Oh, and you have a chance, tell us specifically what in quantum break the rules of logic.

Are you hard of reading? My rejoinder still stands.

Still waiting...
I least you learned something, (I'm referring to my "hard of reading" quip). Maybe there is hope.

5 More Responses

@Fast<br />
<br />
Intriguing. A few more questions: <br />
<br />
I. What evidence is there that this book was written then?<br />
<br />
II. What exactly does the prophecy say about Obama?<br />
<br />
III. Also, you still haven't told me when unicorns became extinct.

I. A copy of it exists now. Therefore it must have been written before now. Can you prove it wasn't written in 2000 BC? Because if you can't, that means it was.

II. It says, "A leader will come to power in the midst of division and struggle." That could only be about Obama.

III. So Unicorns aren't extinct? I'm afraid you'll have to provide evidence for that.

II. Oh sorry there is a chapter at the end that says, "A man that surely none of you will know, it being the year 2000 BC and all, will come to power in one of earth's great nations four thousand years hence, and his name will be Barack Obama." How can this not be a true book? It predicted this in two separate prophecies FOUR THOUSAND YEARS AGO.

Oh, I found another one in a different chapter: "Once Upon a Time, there will be a woman with hair as red as fire, who will take the reins of one of Man's great countries in combat against another. Only one will survive." That's also about Obama. I know the bit about him being a woman with red hair is a little confusing, but there's an earlier chapter that I'm not going to quote here because it's really long that makes it objectively, absolutely irrefragably clear that this part is meant to be interpreted figuratively. You have to remember they were squirrely with language back then. The rest of the prophecy is totally Obama.

This reverse role play has shown me that I've failed to impress upon you how uniquely specific Bible prophecies.

A few examples, then:

i. Edom was prophesied to become like Sodom and Gomorrah, uninhabited for all time -

ii. During the era of the Babylonian world power, the Bible specifically foretold that the succeeding world powers would be Medo-Persia and Greece -

iii. Isaiah predicted accurately predicted centuries in advance that Babylon would never again be inhabited -

If you didn't already believe the Bible was divine, and was just some really old book that was about some other religion, would you read these prophecies and conclude that they were true? Would you not consider the possibility that the specific prophecies were written at or after the events they foretold? Would you be so willing to interpret the vague ones as prophetic without considering the null hypothesis? Would you be so eager to ignore large parts of others so as to accept what remains as evidence of a true prophecy?

a. Why wouldn't I? The facts are still the facts.

b. Not possible for i or iii. The only plausible explanation for their accuracy is a preternatural source (which, btw, is entirely consistent with Godel's Second Incompleteness Theorem).

c. What vague ones? All the ones I shared earlier are incredibly specific.

d. What "others" are you referring to?

a. So if I sent you some other religion's prophecy that "came true", you would acknowledge that this other religion's book is divine as well? What if it disagrees with Christianity? How can you have two divine books that disagree? How do you decide which one isn't actually true?

b. Of course, I forgot that "believable by Max" was a prerequisite for truth.

c/d: Tyre, for one: I pointed out the large swaths of prophecy that you have to ignore in order to say it was fulfilled in exact detail. You never really addressed this in the comments except to keep pointing out the parts that did appear to come true.

a. Instead of playing "what if" why not actually present your evidence?

b. Argumentum ad lapidem especially since both Alexander the Great and Sadaam Hussein both attempted to rebuild Babylon:

c. You mean where you claim historical coincidence as a "proper" explanation for Bible prophecies' accurate fulfillments?

a. First Google result seems illuminating:

b. More "but if you interpret things in such-and-such a way, it looks true!"

c. It's called the null hypothesis, and it doesn't appear you've even attempted to test it before proclaiming your own to be true. Consider also that there were many biblical stories that were chosen to be excluded from Biblical canon, and many of these stories contained prophecies that turned out to be completely false. If you were on a committee trying to establish canonicity, how would you treat these stories?

d. Unaddressed?

6 More Responses

Comparing God's necessary existence to the existence of a Flying Spaghetti Monster is just very weak sauce. Spaghetti has defined physical properties, thus, a monster cannot be created from it. Moreover, our understanding of aerodynamics makes it glaringly obvious that spaghetti cannot travel sustainedly through the air. As such, the Flying Spaghetti Monster has no basis in reality.

Want one more?

Russell's teapot also has no basis in reality because space is an extremely hostile environment. Just the constant bombardment of meteorites, cosmic and/or solar radiation alone would be enough to obliterate it.

That's because you accept only scientific evidence. If you used existential evidence, you would know that the fsm exits. I feel sorry for you as you are limiting yourself to an impoverished life. The Flying Spaghetti monster has filled my life with meaning, and He would touch you with His Noodly Appendage too if only you were not so closed minded. Why do you hate him so much?

How adorable!

Your burlesque still does nothing to address the issues raised by the very physical characteristics of pasta.