I Am Not An Atheist

If you are an atheist the unverse has no meaning@Trevo

@Speedyman No, if you're religious, you've managed to fool yourself into thinking that the universe has a meaning, just because it makes you happy to think so.

I can't think of anything more depressing than the universe having no purpose other than to feed the vanity of its creator, and to serve as a sorting mechanism to assign people either to eternal bliss or eternal torture. What a disgusting, horrible scenario you believe in. If there was a God like the one you claim to believe in, the most reasonable reaction would be to attempt to destroy him.

Unfortunately its people like you who gave fooled yourselves into thinking nothing made something. I could think of no more depressing thing in the universe having no meaning at all, which is what you believe. All that truth indeed has no meaning because we are made by unguided forces and are the products of chance. Therefore we do not even know whether the meaning we claim to have his right . We don't even know whether our thought processes are rational as the universe is irrational. I find that totally depressing as the people did who believed it like in the theatre of the absurd@LeopoldBloom

@Speedyman Stop putting words in my mouth. I never said "nothing made something," and no credible atheist says that. You're the one who is saying "nothing made something" because you can't account for where your God came from, other than the infantile assertion "he was always here." Since you can't explain God's origins, your position is basically "it's magic."

I don't believe we're products of chance, either. We're the end result of natural laws whose operations are fairly well understood. You on the other hand can't even begin to explain the exact mechanism God used to create the universe. It shows a lack of intellect on your part that you're not even interested in that question.

No atheist might say it but that is what you believe. Of course your products of chance asylu believe the natural laws were a product of chance happenings. Even an atheist like Brian Cox has speculated that we are part of some giant computer program or other as the fine tuning of the universe s reams 'design' at us. You are once again making the mistake of saying that because we understand something of the mechanism (and only a small part incidentally - 96% of what goes on up there is a mystery) we can do without the agency. Never mind it's a mistake that most atheists make so you're not alone. If you actually read the rubbish you put, you other one lacking in intellect and understanding. In fact you seem to have a mental block in that you assume that people believe in agency are not interested in the mechanism. This is absolutely untrue as the great scientists of the past believe they were 'thinking God's thoughts after him' to quote Jepler. Unfortunately you are deluded yourself into the position where you feel that science and faith are at loggerheads and of course they are not in that they are different ways of understanding the universe and why we are here@LeopoldBloom

@Speedyman Got it, atheists aren't allowed to express what they believe, they need an ignorant, hateful god botherer like you to put words in their mouths and tell them what they really believe.

Atheism is the lack of belief in deities. That's all it is. If you can provide objective proof of God's existence, and not just appeal to authority or insults, I'll definitely consider it. At least I'm open minded. Your mind is closed as tight as a steel drum; you're never going to question your own "beliefs" which are nothing more than mindless parroting of what others have told you. You actually have the nerve to dismiss science while typing on a computer, FFS.

However, you are a good representative of the state of religion in the developed world, which is why young people are abandoning it in droves. It's nothing more than an incoherent hatefest.

https://www.newsweek.com/2018/12/21/evangelicals-republicans-trump-millenials-1255745.html

@Speedyman So I can't prove that your God doesn't exist, any more than I can prove the Tooth Fairy doesn't exist. But I can explain why your concept is logically contradictory.

William Lane Craig's Kalam Explanation states that the universe could only have been created by something very powerful, and outside of space and time, which he claims is an act of will by a deity. Let's think about this for a moment. An act of will has two components - conception and execution. However, in our experience, these exist within the arrow of time. First you decide to do something, then you do it. Outside of time, the two would happen simultaneously. So no thought could have been involved. Therefore, WLC's God is a purely natural process, and cannot be the personal deity of Christianity.

So let's look at what happens if God created the universe, but time already existed. Now, there's no problem - he decided to create it, and then he created it (we'll ignore for the moment any question of how he did this; we'll just accept it). But here, God exists within the arrow of time, same as we do. So he's like us, he's subservient to time, and bound by its limitations. So he must have been himself created by an even more powerful God that was outside of time. But that God would have the same problem in my previous paragraph. And another, more powerful God deciding to create your God, and then creating him, leads to an actual infinity (because you now need an infinite series of Gods, each one creating the next. WLC says that an actual infinity, which comes to an end at the Big Bang, is impossible.

Therefore, the personal God of Christianity cannot exist. This doesn't rule out an impersonal God, but such a deity would take no interest in us and can be ignored, since his existence is irrelevant to us.

I don't expect you to understand this, but since others will read it, I'm really talking to them.

Your reasoning is incredibly defective, based on totally false assumptions. What do you do not seem to realise is that the God of the Bible has another beginning or end so does not exist within our arrow of time. In fact we might say that time started when God created the world as time is a dimension that we go through in our existance just as time and space are. You also have this wrong headed idea that is somehow the responsibility of this to prove there is a God . Now we don't use that reasoning for everything else that is obviously designed . When I bought my last car I didn't ask for proof tHat it had a maker. Nor my computer. I just assumed that these complex and highly tuned mechanisms had a maker and designer . How much more should we assume that with a highly tuned and far more complex mechanism that is the universe. By Occam's Razor we go to the simplest and mostobvious explanation - The creation did not create itself but was created . So you see the very basis your reasoning is totally false and wrong headed . That is why atheism is a delusion - it start from totally false assumptions@LeopoldBloom

@Speedyman My reasoning is based on logic. Yours is based on fantasy and wishful thinking.

If the universe was designed by God, then clearly God requires an even greater designer of his own. Saying "God doesn't need a designer" is a semantic stopsign. In fact, there's no evidence whatsoever that the universe was designed, therefore, no intelligent designer is needed. You're claiming it's designed because you want it to be, since that requires your God to exist. That's an example of the logical fallacy of begging the question.

Until you can credibly explain God's origin, you're just talking out of your ass.

You gave no reasoning whatever. One thing I noticed about you is that you do not accept simple logic. Of course God the eternal does not require a designer. That is logic something which seems to escape you . The problem is that you're thinking is so limited you cannot grasp these concepts. If you would only open your mind rather than shut it you might get on a bit better. The problem is atheists are to narrowminded in their thinking@LeopoldBloom

@Speedyman "God doesn't require a designer."

That's not a logical statement, it's the ipse dixit fallacy, the claim that something must be true because you're capable of saying it.

Prove God doesn't require a designer beyond just making the unsubstantiated claim that we're all supposed to accept because you're under the delusion that you are the earthly representative of an imaginary being.

Even if God does exist, you can't even prove that you are capable of speaking for him or that you know what he wants. Yet we're just supposed to bow down and accept whatever you say, or we're idiots.

It's hilarious that someone like you, whose mind is shut as tight as a steel drum, accuses me of not being "open-minded." I first heard that crap in college, where some fundamentalist nitwit would say "you're not open minded because you refuse to agree with everything I say." Why don't you put your money where your mouth is, Speedy? How about attending a mosque for a month to show us how open minded you are?

The fact is there us no need to prove God. The fact if a reasonable universe assumes it. The fact is that you guys totally deceive yourselves by assuming our minds are as tight as a drum. Come on! Look in a mirror, you are a total fundamentalist yourself whose mind is rptotally closed to reason. Atheism is an unreasoned position. Intellectual garbage. and as I have been well acqauianted with Imams and spent time in discusiion with them So I am pretty well conversant in what they think. The problem is you - your projection (a psychological trick of the mind by the insecure) of your own closed mindedness on others. I'm afraid you are totally self-deceived @LeopoldBloom

@Speedyman If there is no need to prove God, then what are you banging your gums on here for? But good job in evading the problem - instead of admitting that you can't prove God's existence, you dismiss the question by saying you don't have to.

My point, which you seem incapable of understanding, is that I don't believe in God because I've never seen any evidence to suggest that he exists. Just saying "but the universe" doesn't mean anything. You're living in a fantasy world and are shocked that others can see it for what it is - pure self-delusion, probably based on your abject fear of your own death. If making believe that you have an imaginary friend in the sky who will take you to the good place after you kick the bucket is what you need to get through life, then have at it.

The problem is ypur own blindness not to see the evidence. Your problem isn't that there is no evidence in this finely tuned unverse. It's just that you refuse to believe it, that is the nature of atheism - as a highly intelligent Mathematician friend pointed out to me years ago, that atheism is not an intellectual choice - that is the delusion atheists are under. It is a moral and emotional choice. Your refusal to see what is obvious is because you simply don't want to see it . Therefore it is you who live in the fantasy world of self delusion and of course you have to make out that it is that others live in the world of self delusion. I can assure you that my conversion to Christianity was not based at all on an abject fear of my death. That is something you have written into the script and another delusion atheists like to are up. My conversion to Christianity was based on the facts that I saw. Another delusion you guys labour under is that we believe in the imaginary in the sky. Let me assure you we believe in no such person. We believe in the immortal eternal creator who is a lot different from your little man in the sky or the idiocies made up by poor old Dawkins and his crew. Anyway. Happy Christmas. I take it that on principal you will not be celebrating it@LeopoldBloom

@Speedyman No, I don’t celebrate Christmas since the holiday is of pagan origin and I’m not a pagan either.

@Speedyman Speedyman is why the churches are emptying out. Young people hear this nonsense and want nothing to do with it. Either it's "you're stupid if you don't believe" or it's a hysterical anti-gay, anti-abortion, anti-science hatefest combined with worshipping Donald Trump as the second coming of Jesus.

When I was in college, this preacher "Brother Jed" used to appear every few months as he toured the U.S. His shtick was near-deification of Ronald Reagan, combined with railing against "fraternity boys" and "hoe-moe-seck-choo-alls." He wasn't any more successful at gaining converts than old Speedy here is.

You are of course completely misinformed and out of touch with reality as usual . In fact young people do want to hear the gospel and as I had to go to a church with many young people I think I know better than you . Your problem is you are believing crass nonsense you have either seen on the Internet already in some fool newspaper. The churches which are emptying out other ones which are compromising the gospel . The message we preach has nothing to do with the hysterical anti-gay, anti-abortion antiscience hate fast and certainly has nothing to do with worshipping Donald Trump. You are completely off the wall if you believe this sort of nonsense which is propagated by certain parts of the atheist Internet. The problem with you is you are so gullible that you'll believe anything. You're in fact as gullible as those who might believe in brother Jed whoever he was. The sort of Christianity you don't believe in I don't believe either. The sort of Christianity we believe in is dictated by historical facts and reason as well as faith, as it should be .
Unfortunately you have allowed yourself to get duped by a lie which takes a caricature of Christianity and spreads it around. But then as I say when people stop believing in God they don't believe in nothing they believe in anything@LeopoldBloom

@Speedyman You don't appear to understand that it's not relevant if scientist of the past believed in god. Newton was completely consumed with the occult and alchemy. He produced solid understandings of the time with physics but there was still quiet a bit of irrational quackery to him. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton%27s_occult_studies

Just because a scientist was a religious man is not really evidence for religion. It's not even relevant.

@Speedyman Further you don't understand science even though you've claimed to be a trained scientist.

If you did you would have an understanding of How empiricism actually works and epistemology. When I told you Atheism was the default position you didn't appear to grasp the point I was making which is rooted in knowledge of how empirical studies are actually conducted by the Scientific community, I told you it was nothing more than the Null hypothesis. By the methodology of the Scientific method you're supposed to have to conduct experiments to refute the Null Hypothesis which is the idea that your hypothesis is actually wrong and not true.

Only when the results of an experiment refute the Null Hypothesis are they noteworthy and are submitted to Academic Journals for Actual Peer review by other scientist who are experts in their field.

You don't understand science and you don't understand the meaning of the word "evidence" when I've debated you because you've constantly suggested you have given "Evidence" when what you have stated is essentially the argument that Design is self evident if you just look outside your window at things like the fact that the sun rises and the beauty in nature.

You find nature beautiful yet have no understanding of it, clearly.

What God of Love would design the Predator Prey relationship where Creatures are engaged in a game to obtain food where the end result for either creature is either starvation or evisceration by the animal trying to eat you?

More over you've argued that the human eye is a wonderful example of design in spite of obvious flaws, the light receptive cells being backwards in the eye and the fact that the brain has to compensate for the flaws in the eye. That isn't even all of it either- There are Bugs that like to Borough themselves into the eye causing massive damage to them. What kind of Bloody Designer would do that?

You Deny the overwhelming Evidence of evolution...

You act like all of us who believe in it are no better than Religion when really all of the Empirical evidence points to it.

You think a Designer is a better explaination for what we witness in nature and it's SO Obvious but the reality of things like STDS which are really caused by microorganisms in our Sexual fluids like sperm not "Divine justice" for sexual immorality but by GERMS -this all points to natural selection.

Why would a Designer make human males so drawn to sex with the females and make it feel so intensely pleasurable and yet cause that very process to be what causes pregnancy?

This clearly points to natural selection yet for some reason you appear to feel an intelligent designer is a better explaination

Why would YHWH Design HIV?

And honestly my feeling is if your explaination is To punish the gays for their sexual immorality that is why I run a program on my computer to crunch data looking for a cure.

Because a god that would Punish us for Such Petty reasons with Death is unfit for worship and should be resisted.

But Clearly all the Evidence out there points to Natural selection without any form of divine intervention.

That's why Sex is pleasurable- because our DNA is specifically designed to produce copies of itself. the nature of most microorganisms is to multiply-and so our DNA is structured to do the same, to spread out and conquer.

Why design men to be horny and yet women to be selective and want a man that can provide? Why make men much more disposed to polyamory and yet women much more drawn to potential providers and disposed to monogamy because of the fact that it raises the potential of father's taking care of any potential children.

What Fucking Designer would do this to us? And yet you Christians argue god is love.

What "Loving" designer would create Children born with Cancer?

If nature is proof of a Designer it's proof of a Cruel one who was misanthropic and wanted to make humans suffer.

I don't know what part of the Internet you've got this other but it shows a lack of understanding right at the beginning. The default position for science is not atheism. That is why all the great scientists of the past were theists not atheists as they believed in a rationally created universe. Unfortunately people believe the 19th century lie that science and religion was somehow in conflict with each other. But to people like Kepler, who believed in the rational universe, scientists were just thinking gods thoughts after him, which is of course true if you understand science . The universe is rational and it is also designed . No of course we know that mankind has mucked up the planet but that does not deny the need for a creator.
The thing you gullibly accept without any thought us the fact that we are part of a fallen world which is not as the creator intended it. But then none of us are living as a creator intended it and we disobey the very laws he put here for a health and then blame him when things go badly for us. You seem to have a bit of a hangup about sex but the Bible has no hangups about sex in that God created sex to be enjoyed between a man and a woman in loving partnership. The problem is we abuse our bodies and do things which are not according to the makers instructions, and then people like you turn round and blame the maker when things go wrong.
I notice you've accepted the usual tired propaganda about the eye being imperfectly designed. Of course this charges made by atheists who believe they know better how the eye should be designed . It is actually a circular argument. Mind you I would say that even the imperfectly designed eye would give an indication of a designer , to anyone with half a brain . I mean because there are imperfections in the design in my car doesn't mean to say didn't have a designer. Atheists need to think before they start speaking @PDXNative1986

@PDXNative1986 You're wasting your time with Speedy. His whole argument is "you're an idiot because you disagree with me," end of story. What's hilarious is that he actually thinks he's a Christian.

So to be a Christian one has to not tell the truth? This is of course the default position of atheists in that they believe they can say what they like about other peoples faith but when people point out to them how ridiculous their own views are they take offence as they have a totally skewed view of Christianity. Over and over again in the bible it talks about atheists being falls because they ignore the obvious evidence for the creator. And of course when someone points about the atheist gets all offended because atheism is built on human pride@LeopoldBloom

@Speedyman A Christian would craft a coherent argument. All you do is come on here and insult people.

It is a coherent argument. Just that you take it amiss. If I call a stupid argument stupid then it's just telling the truth, bluntly I will give you, but then the Bible tells us that the fool says in his heart there is no God and that is blunt. The problem is with you people you do not like robust argument which proves that you are totally up the creek in your illogical arguments for atheism@LeopoldBloom

@Speedyman Insulting people is not a coherent argument, Sparky.