Why are atheist so angry with God?

a reply to: cooperton

The Bible says God manipulates free will.

Perhaps not every little choice you or I make, but the point being, he isn't above changing people's minds if it suits him. Quite troubling.

a reply to: cooperton

Good points! You said:

Because someone thinks different than you, they must be thinking illogically?

I haven't seen one unanswered theological objection so far in this thread... perhaps you guys are the ones unwilling to look past your confirmation bias.

Exactly!

It always amuses me when they talk about confirmation bias when they buy the books, videos and magazines from other atheist as if they have no bias. If you look at a debate on YouTube with Richard Dawkins, no matter what silly things he says, there's atheist with confirmation bias in the comments cheering him on.

It gets worse for atheist, materialist and secularist.

They're on the side devoid of reason and logic. We serve a God that says,"Come now, Let us reason together." The Bible talks about wisdom, knowledge and understanding.

If you accept a natural interpretation of evolution or a gazillion universes with different versions of you or abiogenisis, you're on the side of the illogical. You have to say,"Given enough time, anything can happen." Who has the confirmation bias?

An athiest, secularist and materialist have to blindly accept the absurd and when you debate them you here things like,"It may look designed" or "Anything can happen with enough time" or "Some sort of primordial soup turned non-life into a supercomputer."

This is confirmation bias. When you have to accept the illogical in order to be an atheist, secularist or materialist.

I just posted a thread that shows after building a 10 billion dollar collider, they couldn't find naturalness and they now say they have to abandon reductionism which Christians have been saying in debates for years.

Science finds more evidence of God's Creation
www.abovetopsecret.com...

We serve a God of order, reason, wisdom and understanding. They're the ones with a bias that allows them to accept the illogical in order to maintain their belief.

a reply to: neoholographic
That cuts both ways. Just because some people on the atheist side are steeped in confirmation bias doesn't mean those on the other side are not.

"Anything can happen with enough time" or "Some sort of primordial soup turned non-life into a supercomputer" is no worse than "The bible says [insert book and verse(s) here]" or "It is god's will."

Neither has been proven.

By the way, that thread you linked hasn't gotten past page 1 since you made it. If you ask me it is because it is fluff.

Scientists failing is more common than them finding answers. All that shows is that the experiment didn't produce what they expected. It doesn't validate your belief, but you thinking it does puts your bias on show.

Sometimes I think it's a case of Stockholm-syndrome, it makes me really sad.

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
The Bible says God manipulates free will.

In the story of the tower of Babel he outright violates it.

People working on the tower have their language changed and they were spread out over the earth. Was it their will for this to happen?

What gets me is that the KJV says "And the Lord said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do."

A united humanity, working together could do anything and the god of the bible apparently thought this was a bad thing.

I'm just going to say it, that sounds like a despot. Just like a king or a dictator thinking that if the people could get to them they will lose it all.

a reply to: daskakik

What???

You said:

"Anything can happen with enough time" or "Some sort of primordial soup turned non-life into a supercomputer" is no worse than "The bible says [insert book and verse(s) here]" or "It is god's will."

Like I said, the atheist has to believe in the illogical.

Tell me how nature can encode sequence with information then encode information in it's sequesnce to build machinery to decode this information.

The book Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life is written by Hubert Yockey, the foremost living specialist in bioinformatics. The publisher is Cambridge University press. Yockey rigorously demonstrates that the coding process in DNA is identical to the coding process and mathematical definitions used in Electrical Engineering. This is not subjective, it is not debatable or even controversial. It is a brute fact:

“Information, transcription, translation, code, redundancy, synonymous, messenger, editing, and proofreading are all appropriate terms in biology. They take their meaning from information theory (Shannon, 1948) and are not synonyms, metaphors, or analogies.” (Hubert P. Yockey, Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life, Cambridge University Press, 2005)

evo2.org...

Tell me how information was encoded in the sequence of a storage medium to regulate the expression of genes?

Here's some of the article:

The extra particles would have explained the tiny Higgs mass, restoring what physicists call “naturalness” to their equations. But after the LHC became the third and biggest collider to search in vain for them, it seemed that the very logic about what’s natural in nature might be wrong. “We are confronted with the need to reconsider the guiding principles that have been used for decades to address the most fundamental questions about the physical world,” Gian Giudice, head of the theory division at CERN, the lab that houses the LHC, wrote in 2017.

At first, the community despaired. “You could feel the pessimism,” said Isabel Garcia Garcia, a particle theorist at the Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara, who was a graduate student at the time. Not only had the $10 billion proton smasher failed to answer a 40-year-old question, but the very beliefs and strategies that had long guided particle physics could no longer be trusted. People wondered more loudly than before whether the universe is simply unnatural, the product of fine-tuned mathematical cancellations. Perhaps there’s a multiverse of universes, all with randomly dialed Higgs masses and other parameters, and we find ourselves here only because our universe’s peculiar properties foster the formation of atoms, stars and planets and therefore life. This “anthropic argument,” though possibly right, is frustratingly untestable.

link to article

Do you know what naturalness is? Do you know why they looked for naturalness? They're trying to explain this:

Gravitational constant: 1 part in 10^34
Electromagnetic force versus force of gravity: 1 part in 10^37
Cosmological constant: 1 part in 10^120
Mass density of universe: 1 part in 10^59
Expansion rate of universe: 1 part in 10^55
Initial entropy: 1 part in 10^ (10^123)

They said:

People wondered more loudly than before whether the universe is simply unnatural, the product of fine-tuned mathematical cancellations.

They also thought they would see local realism:

Death by experiment for local realism
www.nature.com...

It's not a Christians job to validate their wild, asinine claims like an infinite multiverse that atheist Stephen Hawking couldn't accept. In this multiverse with a physical wave function, I couldn't have chosen to eat pancakes this morning, I only ate them because a gazillion versions of me in different universe ate different things for breakfast. All of that because naturally they can't explain this:

Gravitational constant: 1 part in 10^34
Electromagnetic force versus force of gravity: 1 part in 10^37
Cosmological constant: 1 part in 10^120
Mass density of universe: 1 part in 10^59
Expansion rate of universe: 1 part in 10^55
Initial entropy: 1 part in 10^ (10^123)

We know intelligence can fine tune parameters when we create. We know that intelligence doesn't need reductionism when we create. We know intelligence can encode sequence with information and design modular machinery. All of the evidence points to God instead of 10^500 false vacua or an infinity of universes with a gazillion versions of me and everyone else for every decision.

You said:

By the way, that thread you linked hasn't gotten past page 1 since you made it.

This just shows how badly you look with these outlandish plot holes that go nowhere. It's a thread with 18 responses and 19 flags. I have threads with 3 responses and 1 flag and threads that's 30 pages long. So what? I've been a member of ATS since 2012 and if you're reduced to commented on the length of threads, it just shows how weak your arguments are.

Tell me, if there's a physical wave function that determines all of our choices, how can you have a favorite food or a favorite TV channel?

originally posted by: neoholographic
Like I said, the atheist has to believe in the illogical.

And I said you also believe in that which is unproven.

What's the difference?

a reply to: daskakik

No, I believe in God that exists.

Let me ask you the question that I asked multiple times that you have dodged.

What's your atheism based on?

How can you say God doesn't exist? How do you know when it's obvious you didn't understand some of the science from my last thread?

My point is, we're a type 0 civilization that has barely explored our solar system, yet you somehow deduced that God doesn't exist. You somehow know the nature of what scientist say is most likely an infinite cosmos and what does'nt exist. How do you know this? What's your atheism based on?

I admit I have limited information and knowledge. I have said several times that I'm nothing and God is everything. I put faith in God, the Creator of all things.

I asked you like 4 or 5 times now.

What's your atheism based on? How do you know God doesn't exist?

originally posted by: neoholographic
No, I believe in God that exists.

That is what I said: "And I said you also believe in that which is unproven."

Let me ask you the question that I asked multiple times that you have dodged.

I admitted to dodging those 3 questions of yours because two didn't apply.

How can you say God doesn't exist?

Because I have had the same type of experiences that probably the writers of the bible had, and they seemed like something humans might embellish enough to result in the bible.

How do you know when it's obvious you didn't understand some of the science from my last thread?

Nobody knows, that is the point.

My point is, we're a type 0 civilization that has barely explored our solar system, yet you somehow deduced that God doesn't exist.

I have to ask, you don't see how the inclusion of "type 0 civilization" is materialism?

Why couldn't other people of the earth have contacted with "god" better than the Hebrews: maybe the Hindus, the Aztecs, the Chinese, the Incas or any other people living on earth at that time?

I admit I have limited information and knowledge. I have said several times that I'm nothing and God is everything. I put faith in God, the Creator of all things.

In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with that, like I said earlier in the thread, I was in that same spot at some point.

What's your atheism based on? How do you know God doesn't exist?

I looked into many mythologies and they all seem to be focused on only a segment of the population of earth, when they were written.

So logic tells me that these stories, including the bible, can't tell the entire truth about all of humanity because they exclude most of humanity. Not because they meant to, but because they just didn't know how big the world is.

a reply to: daskakik

You said:

I have to ask, you don't see how the inclusion of "type 0 civilization" is materialism?

Yep, it shows how limited an atheist is because they have to depend on materialism for their knowledge. You answered the question and didn't even realize it.

Believers aren't limited to materialism. We have faith in God. If you're an atheist, you have nothing to base your atheism on because you have to depend on materialism which means your information is limited to a type 0 civilization.

So logic tells me that these stories, including the bible, can't tell the entire truth about all of humanity because they exclude most of humanity. Not because they meant to, but because they just didn't know how big the world is.

What information did you use to reach a conclusion that the Bible can't tell you the truth can't tell about all humanity? The Bible says:

Romans 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

Which part of humanity is excluded from that verse?

Your post illustrates my point.

If you're an atheist, you have very limited and I would say primitive knowledge to base your atheism on. We're a type 0 civilization that look like cavemen to type 3 or 4 civilizations when it comes to our technology and understanding of the cosmos.

So, thanks for answering my question with a question that shows why atheism is illogical. How can you say God doesn't exist and your knowledge of the universe and the nature of reality is limited to the physics of a type 0 civilization? You said:

I have to ask, you don't see how the inclusion of "type 0 civilization" is materialism?

Again, I'm glad you recognized this because it proves my point and shows you have nothing to base your atheism on.

a reply to: neoholographic
What would life be like if you stopped dividing reality?

Atheists, Christians..... figments of the imagination produced by wording.

Is there ever any thing separate from what is appearing to happen?

The living God is aliveness..... it's life (the one life) that's actually appearing to happen in the immediacy.......nothing separate.....

There is no you or anything else separate from what's occuring.

a reply to: Joecroft

That’s how I know !

Wow I don't know how I didn't see it before?

Thanks for guiding me thru that.

Stephen Hawking said, "Religion is a fairytale for people who are afraid of the dark."

My reply is:

Atheism is a fairytale for people who are afraid of the light.

That's why.

John 3:19 ~ And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil.

a reply to: neoholographic

God hates?

You sure?

a reply to: incoserv

Stephen Hawking said, "Religion is a fairytale for people who are afraid of the dark."

My reply is:


Atheism is a fairytale for people who are afraid of the light.

But dark is used as an analogy to "not knowing" in the text you used. That would make the light in your example personify the ignorant. So the unknown has to be explained by superstitious believes.

I do believe in a omnipresent energy (call it God if you want) but sure that one backfired.

a reply to: ThatDamnDuckAgain
The omnipresent energy appears as what is appearing......there is nothing separate.....nothing other.

One without a second.

a reply to: Itisnowagain
Example still fails

a reply to: ThatDamnDuckAgain
Sorry I don't understand .....what example fails? Can you say more please?

a reply to: Itisnowagain
The post you replied to.

Someone uses Hawkings quote on being afraid of darkness if you are religious / superstitious and tried turning it around thinking that religion therefor is light.

But it would not be. Using the example further, light would therefor be ignorance. If darkness is representing the search for the unknown, then light is the opposite: ignorance.

Was just pointing out that this comparison is saying the opposite of what the poster intended.

I do not agree with Hawking but the way it was twisted isn't logic at all.

a reply to: ThatDamnDuckAgain
Thank you for saying more.