Why are (((Atheists))) like this?

[Elämällä on väliä]

One of the important cornerstones I see much more frequently in faithful people, is the habit of prayer. Especially when they practise voicing gratitude, or asking for wisdom/strength, there is something that happens that very few atheists have something comparable to.

It is a very egocentric purpose of faith.

faith is absolutely not believing against evidence.

Yes, it is. If you had evidence you know. I cannot belive that 2+2=4, because it is proven.

Most historical scholars believe Jesus Christ to be a true historical figure

Muhammad also was a historical figure, but you probably not a muslim just to that simple fact, right?

 

[Lemmingwiser]

It is a very egocentric purpose of faith.

How can a secular case be anything else?

But it also isn't completely: people that function better aren't just better for themselves, they are also better for others.

 

[Elämällä on väliä]

How can a secular case be anything else?

I think giving my taxes to Germoney and giving other peoples kindergeld isn't egocentric for myself. Or when I support Red Cross or some shit.

But it also isn't completely: people that function better aren't just better for themselves, they are also better for others.

And that bat shit crazy idiots making terrorist attack on Planned PArenthood are functioning better? In which way?

 

[CornBogFitz]

It is a very egocentric purpose of faith.


Yes, it is. If you had evidence you know. I cannot belive that 2+2=4, because it is proven.


Muhammad also was a historical figure, but you probably not a muslim just to that simple fact, right?

These are such juvenile arguments. Just because you find a smoking gun, doesn't mean you've found a killer.

 

[Lemmingwiser]

I think giving my taxes to Germoney and giving other peoples kindergeld isn't egocentric for myself. Or when I support Red Cross or some shit.

If you think comparing charitable giving is an argument in atheism vs theism, you are not very informed about which are more charitable.

It also isn't an answer to my question: how could a secular argument intended to persuade appeal to anything else than something that can be called egotistic?

And that bat shit crazy idiots making terrorist attack on Planned PArenthood are functioning better? In which way?

There is not much of a history of atheism, yet there is a history of atheist terrorist attacks.

You also missed the point. I wasn't venerating believers with that comment, I was making the point that people becoming better people isn't necessarily an egotist goal: it serves other people as well (presuming they have an ounce of virtue in them).

 

[gang weeder]

How can you do that though when a huge part of Christianity is the afterlife and, even barring that, it matters which denomination you pick? For example, I don't think most people are trying to comport themselves in a generally Southern Baptist manner where you can do whatever you want once you believe because "faith alone" and "once saved, always saved." In fact, Baptists (including non-Southern) are probably largely reacting specifically to people like Jordan Peterson who like the idea of Christianity symbolically but don't actually believe in supernatural claims.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

 

[Elämällä on väliä]

It also isn't an answer to my question: how could a secular argument intended to persuade appeal to anything else than something that can be called egotistic?

It is: most secular states are highly focused on 'helping poor' with, let say it loud: without good effects.

If you think comparing charitable giving is an argument in atheism vs theism, you are not very informed about which are more charitable.

Secular organizations. Red Cross/Red Crescent isn't affiliated to any religious organization.

There is not much of a history of atheism, yet there is a history of atheist terrorist attacks.

And this attacks are a excuse for bombing PP or what?

I will ask again: how bat shit crazy guys like Samuel Gulick are 'better functioning'? Do you try to tell ust all that belivers can be a shitheads because you know shitheads in non-beliver population?

 

[Zbk3VmLfujjzjxBd43tL]

Do you ever read about cyclic theory? In this version the initial singularity was born due to collapse (or whatever) of former iteration ov universe.

I'm aware of that version of cyclic theory (that's the post heat death one, correct?), but it still has the same problems as all the others, namely, what created THAT universe to begin with.

Probably nothing.

Because in initial singularity they was no reasons why universe expand should not happen, and rest is just physics (gravity and so shit that constructed celestials) and chemistry (all of life and so).

That version of cyclic cosmology is actually WORSE since it doesn't explain why a singularity in a cold, dead universe just one day decided to expand.

No, you didn't.
You might think you did but there is zero evidence in your posts.

I gave you plenty of evidence, starting with the basic fact that nothing cannot create everything.

No, actually.
I disagree with tons of stuff from the Bible.

You literally just said your morality is that of the society you live in, ergo your morality is Judeo-Christian in nature (or specifically the post-Enlightenment corruption of it) because that's the morality of Western society.

 

[Lemmingwiser]

Snip

Why are atheists like this?

Since you like the comparisons, pretty much every study supports that religious people (regardless of which religion) engage in more charitable giving and volunteer work than those who are not or less religious. This is across cultures, not just in (formerly) christian nations.

More importantly you really haven't made a secular argument for charitable giving at all, let alone one that isnt based on egotism.

You're only asserting that secular governments give money out to the poor out of charity (I'd say that motivation is highly debatable), but you're not making any argument as to why they're doing it on secular, non egotistical grounds.

You're making me think you don't even know what an argument is.

 

[Elämällä on väliä]

You're only asserting that secular governments give money out to the poor out of charity (I'd say that motivation is highly debatable), but you're not making any argument as to why they're doing it on secular, non egotistical grounds.

I will ask once more: how bat shit crazy guys like Samuel Gulick are 'better functioning'?

Any further discussion will not be possible until that, sorry.

I gave you plenty of evidence, starting with the basic fact that nothing cannot create everything.

Of course it can. Virtual particles for example are born from vacuum.

Pointing that god created something will bring a question who created god (ok, let's say a primal chaos or something - and them it will be a question why that primal chaos occured) and why god decided to create anything.

Something like in pysics, but in physics theories are sometimes tested and had some usage in daily life. For example, without quantum theory they will be no quantun tunneling. And without quantum tunneling we will have no Esaki tubes. And so even some of current day electronics will not be possible to construct.

That version of cyclic cosmology is actually WORSE since it doesn't explain why a singularity in a cold, dead universe just one day decided to expand.

One thing must be clear: 'before' BB ther was no time, no universe in what you understand by them. All of our time and so one was created in BB. We cannot guess which dimmensions was compactificated in former universe and which wasn't (hot take: modern physics is nearly sure that they are more than 3 spatial dimmensions and more than one time dimmension, but most of them are compactificated in case of what we know as matter; and yes the four-dimmeniosnal [3+1] spacetime is essential to nearly all physic theories since Einstein).

I'm aware of that version of cyclic theory (that's the post heat death one, correct?), but it still has the same problems as all the others, namely, what created THAT universe to begin with.

Erm, the universe which was reason for our BB? Probably another event similar to BB.

So you are probably asking why such events are occuring? Because why not?

Or, sort of a smarter answer: it will be probably described in future, with validation, testing and development of whole current issue called string theories, M-theory and speculations around branes.

Saddly, we are on the begin of discovering and using quantum physics. Probably after constructing complete and working brane theory physics will be looking for answer why branes are existing.

 

[MadStan]

When prayer actually works let us all know

 

[Elämällä on väliä]

When prayer actually works let us all know

Nor prayer, nor unfinished bridge will bring us to the other side of the ravine. But if he go to work over that bridge we will be in some moment able to cross that damn ravine.

 

[MadStan]

Nor prayer, nor unfinished bridge will bring us to the other side of the ravine. But if he go to work over that bridge we will be in some moment able to cross that damn ravine.

I’m struggling to find the meaning of that. Help me out here.

 

[Lemmingwiser]

I will ask once more: how bat shit crazy guys like Samuel Gulick are 'better functioning'?

Any further discussion will not be possible until that, sorry.

You don't answer my questions, but you want me to answer yours?

Why are atheists like this?

I don't know who that is. Presuming from your other posts I think he's someone who bombed planned parenthood? No, I wouldn't say he's better functioning than anyone from say, the league of militant atheists. I do not believe either that morality is the exclusive domain for religious people, in case you were wondering.

Are you going to answer the question now or continue dodging in regards to secular arguments?

 

[Elämällä on väliä]

I’m struggling to find the meaning of that. Help me out here.

If we need to cross a ravine (it is a allegory or obstacles in life) and we see a unfinished (not yet constructed or ready to use) bridge we cannot use this bridge to cross the ravine. But we still wish to cross the damn ravine, because we see a delicious cookie on the other side.

We have two options:

- ask god for help ('hey buddy, can you give me wings like a bird?'),
- join guys who are constructing the bridge. When it will be finished, we get that cookie.

Bridge is allegory of science or whatever - maybye science still didn't give all answers, but our chances are better when we participate/support bridge project. Asking god for help will probably make no difference compared to not doing anything.

You should also have in mind that my command of english is more like typicall chinka from aliexpress than a well-educated guy. This is kiwifarms.net, not nerdnest.com.

Are you going to answer the question now or continue dodging in regards to secular arguments?

Which one? That about charity?

Well, when a atheist makes a donation to Red Cross he does it because he have a internal need to do that - maybye he is feeling bad for all that Solferino guys or whatever. Probably he didn't have any egocentrical motivation (he has less money and receive none gratification).

When a religious guy makes a donation to a charity organization he probably thinks about own salvation ('if I will not make any effort to help other I will go to hell'), so he is egocentric.

And how to persuade atheist with only sceular motives to make such donation? Well, if he had some emphaty he will be vulnerable to sad pictures, so it is possible to just show him a pic of starving og or something and tell him that he can change it.

 

[Lemmingwiser]

Well, when a atheist makes a donation to Red Cross he does it because he have a internal need to do that - maybye he is feeling bad for all that Solferino guys or whatever. Probably he didn't have any egocentrical motivation (he has less money and receive none gratification

You're describing an internal need or removing feeling bad about something. How is that not an egocentric motivation?

 

[CAPTAIN HAPPY]

Guys, one good atheist throws out all the lunatic nonsense that atheism has wrought up to this Year of our Lord and one bad Christian makes Christianity ebil.
Fuck context and fuck history.

 

[Idiotron]

I gave you plenty of evidence, starting with the basic fact that nothing cannot create everything.

What does that even mean?
When was this something I ever mentioned?
Also, are you one of those people who think that if it's not god, it has to be nothing?
That's a false dichotomy and you have no imagination.
Here's a hypothesis regarding the big bang:
It's cyclical, the universe expands, then it contracts, then it expands, then it contracts... and so on and so forth for all eternity.
Notice how there's no god.... but also there's no nothing.
That's just one of millions of possibilities.

Also also, you can't prove that nothing can't create everything because there is no nothing to analyze.
There's something everywhere, even in the void of space there are particles all over the place.
Nothing might not even be possible because, as far as we know, a place without anything there just doesn't exist.
Maybe it does but we've never found it.

Also also also, a declarative statement isn't evidence, it's just words.
I'm going to need more than words to back up the extraordinary claim that a sentient eternal all powerful creator of the universe exists.

 

[Badungus Kabungus]

How come throughout thousands years of history there hasn't been a single successful atheist culture?

 

[Matt Damon]

How come throughout thousands years of history there hasn't been a single successful atheist culture?

Religions may well have utility in keeping societies stable. That has no bearing on whether any of them are factually true.

Telling your unruly kids that Santa Claus is watching to get them to behave doesn't make him real.