What to say to the athiest?

[mlchance]

You’d be surprised how much easier it is to relate to people when you don’t have to believe they are going to be punished by burning in hell for eternity.

Perhaps you’d be surprised to know that the Church doesn’t say that you have to believe the people you relate to are going to Hell.

Atheism is irrational. It is always based on something other than actual Church teaching. It is a series of strawmen, diversions, and digressions, the goal of which is avoid honestly dealing with hard questions.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Abbadon]

Its grand, but don’t get ahead of yourself. You have agreed with the conclusion of a force outside of time which made time, matter and energy. Be a man, and stake that bit of knowledge as your own. Don’t get distracted too easily from what you figure out.
You’ll probably want to know next if we can catch a glimpse of the nature of this force which has made everything. Can we put any type of shape on it, can we see its thumbprints on our reality using the vast amount of knowledge we have access to as well as using other more ephemeral qualities that attract us, as well as that sense of attraction itself.
Things like honour, mercy, love, kindness, personality. These had their origin in that creative force also.

Agree to everything except the last line… Unlikely that human concepts would be related with the force that created the universe. I’m even unsure if other sentient life forms would share such ideals. But since they would have evolved and would have societies also it is possible that they have similar concepts… But these concepts would come from them selves for survival purposes and not from said creating force… As we have observed and hypothesized anthropologically…

 

[Abbadon]

Perhaps you’d be surprised to know that the Church doesn’t say that you have to believe the people you relate to are going to Hell.

Atheism is irrational. It is always based on something other than actual Church teaching. It is a series of strawmen, diversions, and digressions, the goal of which is avoid honestly dealing with hard questions.

– Mark L. Chance.

Athiesm is the default, you have to be taught to be a catholic a muslim a hindu or a worshiper of Isis…

And we are all athiests in relation to many things, faeries, frigg, isis etc… some people just go one diety/mythical creature further…

Or do you mean everyone who is not catholic is irrational? Becuase muslims, taoisists bhuddists and hindu’s also don’t beleive in your version of god…

 

[Abbadon]

Perhaps you’d be surprised to know that the Church doesn’t say that you have to believe the people you relate to are going to Hell.

No but it’s implied when you have to except jesus as your saviour or go to hell, say confession or go to hell, don’t “spill seed” or go to hell… So you cannot help but look at people of other faiths or of no faith and go, those people are damned…

 

[mlchance]

Athiesm is the default, you have to be taught to be a catholic a muslim a hindu or a worshiper of Isis…

So? One must also be taught that 2 and 2 are 4. Even if it is true that atheism “is the default,” that one must be taught to be Catholic isn’t relevant. No one said being Catholic is innate. Non sequitur, anyone?

And we are all athiests in relation to many things, faeries, frigg, isis etc… some people just go one diety/mythical creature further…

Atheism isn’t defined as not believing in whatever one doesn’t believe in. Equivocation, anyone? The last part is also irrational. It is something akin to begging the question and an appeal to ridicule.

Or do you mean everyone who is not catholic is irrational?

Given that’s not what I said, you’ve now ventured into the realm of the strawman.

No but it’s implied when you have to…

No, it is not implied. It is inferred, conveniently so because the inference relieves one of the burden of honestly addressing Catholic soteriology.

That point aside, let’s say for a moment that the Church teaches that everyone who isn’t a baptized Catholic will go to Hell. (Keep in mind the Church does not teach this.)

What does rejecting the unpleasantness of this hypothetical teaching demonstrate about its truth or falsity? That’s right: Nothing. This is just a thinly veiled version of the wishful thinking fallacy. IOW, I don’t like X; I want X to be false; therefore, X is false.

Like I said: Atheism is irrational. It is always based on something other than actual Church teaching. It is a series of strawmen, diversions, and digressions, the goal of which is avoid honestly dealing with hard questions.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Abbadon]

Hmmm i can’t seem to find a dictionary definition of atheism, maybe i am not looking hard enough, Bleach may have something to do with it…

WIkipedia was as close as i could get, so i’m not sure exactly what it means, i simply thought athiesm was the lack of beelief in something.

I was just saying that athiesm isn’t irrational, my father also does not believe in a god/personal god/gods but he is relegious, he is a bhuddist, he is an athiest in regards to many things like we all are. My mother the catholic beleives in god but she is an athiest in regards to Isis, my favourite goddess when i was 12…

Lets look at it a different way, how do you feel about the beliefs of Norse mythology? what are your thoughts on it do you not beleive it would you ask for evidence to support thier claims? i am making an assumption on the way you think but if i am correct it would be the same way I feel about christianity…

What is irrational about asking for evidence to prove your hypothesis? Any athiest who says there is 100% no way a chance there is a god is as dogmatic as the relegious people they critiseize…

Of course there can be a god, there can also be magical ponies who run free across the plains, and faries, and crossing my fingers for the mirror deamons, hot little vixens that they are…

It is not that I (and others i would assume) don’t like X, it is that X doesnt make alot of sense, sounds like a bad fairy tale, where the blond girl gets away with theft of property squatting breaking and entering and vandalism, and there is no evidence for. I don’t know if there is a purgatory or anything after death and there is no way that anyone else knows the answer to that question either… yet…

The irrational part I think is where you can accept something which is unfalsafiable, unproveable and has no evidence to support it. But then again since many people have accepted it i am sure there is some at least seemingly rational way to do so.

As for not dealing with hard questions i would put forward that it is relegious people who do that. I am constantly thinking about and contemplating why I am here, what am I doing, do i have a purpose. And reading philosephy and observing much media helps me to understand many things. I take in alot and try to figure it out, where as you are told what your purpose is… Are you not?

 

[Thing]

Agree to everything except the last line… Unlikely that human concepts would be related with the force that created the universe. I’m even unsure if other sentient life forms would share such ideals. But since they would have evolved and would have societies also it is possible that they have similar concepts… But these concepts would come from them selves for survival purposes and not from said creating force… As we have observed and hypothesized anthropologically…

You said the creating force made humans possible. That same force allows for the creation of the physical human mind and makes those qualities [mentioned] possible, in the same way that there are no accidental and randomly changable laws of physics, and, as you previously agreed, I think, that time, matter and energy were created by an act of will by this force I think that deliberate accidents can be discounted as being redundant.
I think we see something of this will of this creator when we find that we share a similar thing, will. We could imagine, create, do anything, by an act of our own will. Where does will come from, but from the creative force that willed us into being. How do we use our will?
Whats an atheists will? - to understand why hes here [but there is no why].
A catholics will? - we were created to know and to love God. [that creative force]

 

[Abbadon]

You said the creating force made humans possible. That same force allows for the creation of the physical human mind and makes those qualities [mentioned] possible, in the same way that there are no accidental and randomly changable laws of physics, and, as you previously agreed, I think, that time, matter and energy were created by an act of will by this force I think that deliberate accidents can be discounted as being redundant.
I think we see something of this will of this creator when we find that we share a similar thing, will. We could imagine, create, do anything, by an act of our own will. Where does will come from, but from the creative force that willed us into being. How do we use our will?
Whats an atheists will? - to understand why hes here [but there is no why].
A catholics will? - we were created to know and to love God. [that creative force]

you say allows for… you imply that such force has a will… I do not know this to be so… I’m willing to give into the possibilty that the force that initiated the universe had a conciousness… somehow…

But beyond any possible start off of our universe i do not see any signs of (none have been shown to me) of that force continuing to act and guide our universe. Let alone as stated before it creating a son in the middle east 2000 years ago… I’m sorry but thats just absurd…

I don’t know, i would classify my self as an athiest, as much as i love Hjell and have many thoughts about her, i doubt she is a real goddess, a man can hope, I’m definately not going to vallhalla so when i go to nirfalin i think its called maybe we will meet, but i’m sure hejell has fan boys enough already…

But what i was trying to get to was my will, the question of existance may not be everyones will, perhaps some may persue material possesion or power, ignoring philosophical quesitons all together.

And what of the will of other relegious people? would they not share the same will as you?

 

[Thing]

Abaddon:

you say allows for… you imply that such force has a will… I do not know this to be so… I’m willing to give into the possibilty that the force that initiated the universe had a conciousness… somehow…

Ok … recap, you believe now that time, energy, matter had its beginnings from some force that did not have time, energy, matter. Whatever this force is, created time, energy and matter.
How does a force which lacks energy do work, as you said.
What does this force have to achieve work if it does not have energy.
All we can say is that it has the will to produce work. And work is produced from nothing.

 

[Abbadon]

Ok … recap, you believe now that time, energy, matter had its beginnings from some force that did not have time, energy, matter. Whatever this force is, created time, energy and matter.
How does a force which lacks energy do work, as you said.
What does this force have to achieve work if it does not have energy.
All we can say is that it has the will to produce work. And work is produced from nothing.

That is a possibilty, there is no current definite answer, well none that i’ve heard of. Do we have any more clues the the origins of our universe? If there was an origin…

In my oppinion it is likely that the amount of energy present in the universe has always existed somewhere in some form or another…

But like i’ve said I do not know enough to give even a realistic hypothetical answer consistent with current data. So i should probably just say I have no idea, but when someone figures it out and presents it to the scientific community i’d be more than interested to read about it…

 

[Thing]

That is a possibilty, there is no current definite answer, well none that i’ve heard of. Do we have any more clues the the origins of our universe? If there was an origin…

In my oppinion it is likely that the amount of energy present in the universe has always existed somewhere in some form or another…

But like i’ve said I do not know enough to give even a realistic hypothetical answer consistent with current data. So i should probably just say I have no idea, but when someone figures it out and presents it to the scientific community i’d be more than interested to read about it…

Some things you can know; Einstein showed that energy is a function of matter. Matter is potential energy. They are related like both ends of a piece of string - pull one end and one side of the string increases in length whilst the other decreases.
We’ve agreed there has to be an end to the universe and since we live in a finite and material universe there equally has to be a beginning to the universe. At some very early point everything - absolutely everything must have been compressed into an almost infinitely small point.
Nothing could have existed outside that point because everything was contained within it.
How small did that point become, was it microscopic, was it on an atomic scale - too big, a sub atomic scale, still too big.
And where did it come from.
Before it existed there was no energy, no matter.

What does this force have to achieve work if it does not have energy.
All we can say is that it has the will to produce work. And work is produced from nothing.

 

[Abbadon]

Some things you can know; Einstein showed that energy is a function of matter. Matter is potential energy. They are related like both ends of a piece of string - pull one end and one side of the string increases in length whilst the other decreases.
We’ve agreed there has to be an end to the universe and since we live in a finite and material universe there equally has to be a beginning to the universe. At some very early point everything - absolutely everything must have been compressed into an almost infinitely small point.
Nothing could have existed outside that point because everything was contained within it.
How small did that point become, was it microscopic, was it on an atomic scale - too big, a sub atomic scale, still too big.
And where did it come from.
Before it existed there was no energy, no matter.

What does this force have to achieve work if it does not have energy.
All we can say is that it has the will to produce work. And work is produced from nothing.

These are questions that it owuld be cool to know the answer to… but you are making alot of assumptions without the releative evidence…

assuming that the universe was created rather than always been

assuming that creating matter and energy requires a will and is deemed work. A sun creates higher level elements but does not have a will, well none we’re aware of. Humans and other sentients do create with a will but we understand that they are and how they are sentient…

assuming the force that created the universe has a will is a huge step… like i said before…

 

[Thing]

These are questions that it owuld be cool to know the answer to… but you are making alot of assumptions without the releative evidence…

We are well beyond the possibility of evidence. There is no evidence before evidence is created. You’ll just have to use your noggin and think logic and reason.

assuming that the universe was created rather than always been

I’m working on the assumption that that is the scientific view.

…assuming that creating matter and energy requires a will and is deemed work. A sun creates higher level elements but does not have a will, well none we’re aware of. Humans and other sentients do create with a will but we understand that they are and how they are sentient…

assuming the force that created the universe has a will is a huge step… like i said before…

assuming the force that created the universe has a will is the only way I know of to describe the creation of the universe from nothing when the force that created it had no energy to do the work, - it must at the very barest minimum have had the will to do the work. Yes? I don’t think its a huge step, I think its the only step possible.
Remember we’re just trying to describe a force with no energy. An accidental creation by an accidental spending of energy is not possible as the force has no energy to spend.
A random shift of energy from on form to another to result in creation is not possible either again because the force has no energy.
To arrive at a position of energy created from nothing by a force which has no energy requires at the very least, if not the energy, then, the will on the part of the force to create. If it had neither the energy nor the will to create then we would not be here - and I think we are here.

 

[ribozyme]

I believed that way for 30 years and thought all the non-Christians in the world were bad people and that I was one of the superior human beings. It’s only recently that I’ve decided Christianity may not be for me. It was an amazing burden off my shoulders. You’d be surprised how much easier it is to relate to people when you don’t have to believe they are going to be punished by burning in hell for eternity.

I recommend the belief system of Objectivism for you since you do not believe in God. I am sure you will love the speech “This is John Galt Speaking” as it expresses attitudes congruent with your expressed attitudes for the unfortunate on other threads.

If you adhere to Christianity, you have a moral obligation to give to the unfortunate, but since Objectivism rejects secular and religious charity, you no longer have to encumbered by that. If you are an Objectivist, you can keep your superior feeling and proudly reject the “evil” of “altruism.”

 

[Abbadon]

We are well beyond the possibility of evidence. There is no evidence before evidence is created. You’ll just have to use your noggin and think logic and reason.

I’m working on the assumption that that is the scientific view.

assuming the force that created the universe has a will is the only way I know of to describe the creation of the universe from nothing when the force that created it had no energy to do the work, - it must at the very barest minimum have had the will to do the work. Yes? I don’t think its a huge step, I think its the only step possible.
Remember we’re just trying to describe a force with no energy. An accidental creation by an accidental spending of energy is not possible as the force has no energy to spend.
A random shift of energy from on form to another to result in creation is not possible either again because the force has no energy.
To arrive at a position of energy created from nothing by a force which has no energy requires at the very least, if not the energy, then, the will on the part of the force to create. If it had neither the energy nor the will to create then we would not be here - and I think we are here.

The current scientific hypothesis does seem to follow a finite universe. And support for other theories has dwindled so big bang finite it is… for now… so this finite point in time the energy had to come from somewhere. Somewhere without energy and outside time and our observable dimensions…

I disagree still with the whole creations need a will, because we have no idea if a force without energy needs a will to create energy, it could like the natural process that occurs in suns as i mentioned, occur by default. It’s just what happens. However it may indeed have a will, totaly possible at this stage, anything seems possible at this stage since i can’t find squat to give me any idea of what it is.

From what i understand for conciousness we need a physical brain, with electrical signals. We understand this through the various psychological experiments done with people who have had a split brain operation. And others who have brain damage. There is no other observed phenomenon of conciousness without a physical brain.

But that said we have never observed anything without energy or time… perhaps it has time but no energy… So since we have never observed such a thing and have no experience with such things it could totaly be concious…

Honestly there is no answer to this question yet… so i’m going to leave it at I don’t know at this stage any speculation is up for grabs… But obviously logical and reasonable like where your going…

I will outline though that it is not the only possible step, for something to have a will to create something. In all of nature most things occur naturally by them selves. So it is more likely that universe creation is a natural phenomenon given a few conditions and variable…

 

[Abbadon]

Btw thing do you do quantum mechanics for fun/study/work?

Okay I’m going to go along with the a consciousness DID create the universe… Now what?

 

[Thing]

I disagree still with the whole creations need a will, because we have no idea if a force without energy needs a will to create energy, it could like the natural process that occurs in suns as i mentioned, occur by default. It’s just what happens. However it may indeed have a will, totaly possible at this stage,

…

The natural process in the sun of heavier elements being formed is a good example, but, you have to be aware that that process is analogous to changing (kinetic) energy into (potential) energy, but, before this finite universe began there was nothing - no space, no time, energy, nor matter.
Nothing.
There was nothing to form into energy - and nothing to form energy from nothing.
Which is why I’m saying that the furthest we can probably go in thinking is to say that the nothing willed into being something which otherwise would have been impossible to have happen.
Nothing has a will to create because it has nothing and it did create.
At the very least it needs a will in order to create.

 

[Thing]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Lets approach this from the other side. Here is a picture of “nothing”.
We will now sit back and wait for something to be created.

It will not happen without the very least requirement - a will to create.

 

[Abbadon]

http://i89.photobucket.com/albums/k222/dodo123_01/untitled2-1.jpg

Lets approach this from the other side. Here is a picture of “nothing”.
We will now sit back and wait for something to be created.

It will not happen without the very least requirement - a will to create.

Incorrect… i will call this theory the candy state phenomenon… this is pure science fiction as I shall be discussing things which have never been observed… calling events and describing phenomena which aren’t even known… perhaps yet…

In the candy state a black dimensional gap simply exists as infinte blank dimensional gaps exist throughout an endless sea of possibilties… now the candy state is when those dimensional gaps which can be observed as waves rupture and touch each other… the natural occuring phenomena is the result of a dimensional reality… in our reality this has resulted in the variable of time and space… the variables have infinite possibilities and therefore the candy state phenomena can occur infintie times…

However when such a phenomena occurs at any given point the principle of spanish chochlate applies in which wave ruptures merely result in the creation of spontaneous black holes…

And there we have a totaly bs natural way that such an event could occur

 

[Abbadon]

But my previous question still stands… okay there is a “creator” with a will… now what?